Space was Warm.

[A4C]

I think one of dads greatest attributes would be in getting his kids off to sleep at night

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think I explained that some things are not meant to be literal. Usually, it is pretty clear. Like the example I gave of the dragon. The heads represented something. 'The ten horns are ten kings'.. As it says. But that is not applicablr to the rest of the bible as some excuse it all is such. Nothing says that the details, for example of the flood are some story. It is presented as literal, and widely believed as such. I think those who believe, but do not believe the flood, etc was real, are tailoring the bible to fit what they have thought was science. Which is my trip here. To give the good news that was not needed, and is no longer needed.

But are you not also tailoring your Bible to suit your version of science? You believe dragons do not exist in reality, so this part of the Bible is non-literal to you, but you believe that the Flood and Eden actually occured as written in the Bible, so this part is literal. How detailed or asbstract a verse is is irrelevant; what is important is how it suits your belief system.
The example of the dragon: it is possible, albiet minutely so, that the dragon physically existed, and it's physiology was devised to represent kings etc, but it physically existed. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest metaphor and abstraction.

There really is a devil, the drago, here since the garden, who had kingdoms, a certain number of them, and a certain end.

All unsubstantiated, all subjectively believed with no evidence presented or presentable.

No, this is a science forum.

Indeed. That is why I ask for substantiation, and do not accept your claims on blind faith.

All we need to know is you can't prove the same past, and your whole old age evo case is null and void!

1) Lack of proof does not constitute disproof
2) Deep Time is not part of Evolution
3) Evolution is not part of Deep Time
4) The 'same past' assumption is more probable than the 'different past' assumption; indeed, the 'different past' assumption is made more improbable by the logical inconsistencies invoked

OK, there is some word play. But when it comes to ancient witches, and your variety, you haven't demonstrated they are really that different.

The KJV translates the word מכשפה (M'khasephah) as 'witch'. The word מכשפה means 'someone who malevolently uses spoken curses to hurt people', something modern witches are forbidden from doing. It should also be noted that, in the Bible stories of involving מכשפה (Endor, Saul, etc), emphasis is placed on punishing those who claim to have powers they do not (e.g., summoning the dead, 'seeing times', etc)
Modern witches, however, do have the powers we claim to. Furthermore, witches are forbidden from harming people, with or without magick.
Thus are modern witches and Biblical witches different.

Not at all. He will stop us from our deciding to wipe out all life.

Why? He lets us cause untold suffering to each other, so why should an attempt to end all suffering warrent intervention? Or perhaps your god enjoys the suffering of humanity?
Either way, suffering is avoidable for an omnipotent entity (indeed, it is a logical impossibility for suffering to coexist with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity).

My definition is simple. Physical Only is what our universe is, and what science deals in. Anything else, like a different state, or spiritual, is not this.

Then non-PO is the null set. There is nothing besides the universe. That is the whole definition of 'universe'. Unless, of course, you have another definition of that.

It's prophesies were what we were talking about. They are unmatched. Look into it.

I have. Perhaps you should too.
You claimed that the Bible's prophecies are somehow more 'real' than non-Biblical prophecies. I asked for justification, and you gave me a non sequitur. Perhaps you would like to clarify now?

No ther prophesies are 100 % right.

Perhaps. But why are they imperfect?

If you can't figure that out, I can't help you!

There is no reason, not even Biblical, to assume that the physical laws of nature are mutable. What is there to not figure out? You claim the absurd, and then insult anyone who does not accept you on blind faith alone.

Why should I accept something baseless?

Because it is the most probable. Why accept the improbable?

Says who, why?

Logic. There is no why, it simply is. The simpler is the more probable, and the simpler is a 'same past' assumption.

Show us the money.

I have, many times.

Show us the proof. Not just hot assumptions.

Ah, so because no proof of a 'same past' is given, you automatically assume a 'different past'. Yes, that's great logic there.

No scientific reason to accept a same or different past.

Not really. Science adopts assumptions that are the simplest, as per reductionism.

No scientific evidence. And I don't claim there is. That would be you that claims science for beliefs.

If you have no scientific evidence, then what are you doing here? Bear in mind that science is not just facts and figures, it is fundamentally logic, assumption, and probability.

Better than the nothing you have where science gstops.

Hardly. The void is preferable to your god.

Things that are well known like a spiritual of some kind are well known.

Did you not read what I just wrote? Things that are well known are, indeed, well known. That is a tautology. However, the existance of spirituality is not well known, it is well believed. Knowledge comes from proof, not faith.

No, you don't know your bible. OK.

My Bible is the same as yours, mon ami. Note that your reply is also irrelevant, and rather rudely shoves words into my mouth.
Care to show me how my claim that 'The Bible contains no verses that state or otherwise imply an alternate set of physical laws once applying to this our universe' is false?

No heaven can not be just physical, any more than Jesus body.

Whyever not? Because you say so?

You question it? Go ahead and try.

I just did, but you have likely forgotten:
You said: Yes, it says in the bible these heavens shall pass away and new ones come.
I question the validity of this claim. Justify it, or my doubts will be proven correct.

Not as a bible claim they can't.

I'm sorry? Is the Bible the sole property of Christians?

It is basic.

Logic is basic, by definition, but not the Bible.

No simple is on my side.

My apologies. I meant:
'this agent makes your assumption less simple, and is therefore rejected by Occam's Razor with respect to my assumption.'

God will live with man. He is a spirit. That means that spiritual and physical will be together.

Pure conjecture again. What makes you think that your god will live with man (humanity?)?

He was Christian. That is out of your realm, of telling us God inspired him or not.

If it is out of my realm, it is certainly out of yours (you reject empiricism and the past, remember?).
In any case, it does not answer my question.

No, it is misapplied to Christian faith, and he was a monk.

It is a logical principle, not a Christian one.

You call em like you see um.

I'm sorry?

But it is a PO concept, I would say, because we see nothing as lack of something we can see.

No, we do not. The philosopher's nothing is quite different to an absence of matter.

Your side is complicated.

My assumption is that the physical laws are immutable. How is that complex?

Get over it.

Dude. Rad. Totally hip.

Our evidence outside of science for a spiritual, and God, is as wide as the ocean, and deep as the sea. As high as a mountain, as enduring as eternity. It has a billion faces, and a billion voices, and all of history.
The stars declare creation, and a billion miracles agree. Another billion prayers came true, how could I not agree?

1) There is no evidence outside of the scientific method. That is the very definition of evidence.
2) Colourful metaphors do nothing to substantiate your claims. As an anonymous Native American woman once said, 'If you take [a copy of] the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind.'. Does my colourful metaphor become more evidenced now?

OK. Now we are getting to it! Intuition! Ha. Who needs science?!

Not you, clearly. Counter-intuitive claims do not lost validity for being counter-intuitive, but intuitive claims gain support for being intuitive. Logic again, mon ami.

No, only when an assumption is backed up by something.

I'm sorry? Do you even know what an assumption is? If an assumption is supported, then it is not an assumption!

Most assumptions in science are, because they deal in the reality of the present.

Nonsense. Give me one assumption that is backed up.

Don't go last thursdayish on us now.

Whyever not? By your logic, we know nothing beyond our own existance.

He didn't say to keep turning it. I figure it amounts to one free swing. If they hit the other cheek, prepare to meet God! ha.

It appears complex because it is. Very.

Care to show me how cumulative natural processes are more complex than a god?

You dun dulled the razor so much there it looks more like a pencil.

Cute. Did you dad tell you that?

I would hunt live ones. Not rotten dead ones. I need not shoot a duck lying dead, like your claim. Only if it flew with some life, and proof, and evidence, then I would worry about it. Not just cause you shoout, duck.

You've over-extended the analogy. Try again.

Great, what was it?

You claimed that I did not have complete thoughts because I use questions such as 'why' and 'how'.

Don't go Buzz Lightyearing on us now.

You might want to lay off the analogy until you can justify your improbable claims.

There are limits to what we can do, and laws.

Why? Oh, wait, you don't read references, do you. Why are there limits to what laws can do?

No you will be constrained to the reality of what you observe, and test, and actually can prove somewhat, not just fantasy claims you feel like calling science of an unknown far past and future state.

With mutable physical laws, observation (and, hence, facts and evidnece) becomes unreliable. If these are unreliable, then we do not know anything about the real universe.

I found it interesting, and a lot closer than old ageism. They are fundamentally right in most things, except the science.

LMAO! Oh, this is good. FSTDT time, I think.

My forte is that I have more than science to rely on, as well as all the science you do.

That is not a forté, that is a logically inconsistent claim. You claim that your assumption is more scientific, yet you still do not explain why it is scientific.

No, science is not to prove or disprove the belief in a spiritual.

Indeed. However, it often proves, disproves, supports, or counter-supports a beliefs. You fail to understand this still, and you also fail to understand that widespread beliefs can be false.

Bingo.

If you agree, then why do you cite it?

CONTINUED

 

[Wiccan_Child]

CONTINUATION

Can you give us the jist, and a specific or two?

I did:
Acheulean artifacts are of human design and date to ~1.65 million years ago.

Long as yours dies, I don't need science to back mine.

Actually, it is the other way round. If yours is shown to be improbable, then the consensus falls on my more probable one. Consensus does not fall on the improbable with no reason; this is absurd.

Prove it, or that is an insane claim.

Very well.
1) I claim that there is no evidence for the Antichrist's existance.
2) No evidence of the antichrist's existance is presented, or indeed exant.
3) Therefore, (1) is true.

Either cite evidence for the existance of the Antichrist, or shut up.

Based on what do you make this claim???

1) Far more apocalyptic catastrophies have befallen the Earth, and life has flourished regardless.
2) Humanity does not contain the armaments to wipe out life. We could dramatically change the Earth's major environments, but life would evolve to adapt.

Wishes?

I believe that is your realm, mon ami. You know, the one where observations are conjecture and logic has limitations?

"Professor Hawking insists the survival of the human race depends on it finding homes on other worlds.
He believes global warming, nuclear war or a genetically engineered virus could wipe out life on our planet. "

This is a reference to human life, not Earth life in general.

Well, being a surface organism, I think that is close enough.

You grow more absurd by the moment. Do not make catagorical statements if you are just going to contradict them in the next two posts!

He will stop it.

Who, your god? I doubt that.

The bible says, 'except those days be shortened, no flesh should be saved'

And this is relevant... how?

Or joy. Simple.

You argue that the small trickle of happiness in the world justifies the untold suffering of billions?

Remember the Manhattan project? That was secret.

The world knew that the US was constructing atomic weaponry, but it was the details that were secret. Besides, genetics is not warfare.

Look at the stories of forced organ donnations.

What stories? I see none.

Thanks.

I was not complimenting you. I was merely commenting on the fact that you are a Christian, dispite your claim.

Try, is the key word.

No, I believe, 'sarcasm', is better.

Why not?

Because there is no reason to!

In any case, you were just chastising me for this type of response. Be consistent.

It is a prison for spirits. It is also the center of earth, which is the center of the universe!

Nonsense. It is the centre of the Earth, yes, but it is not the center of the universe. We orbit the Sun; the Sun does not orbit us.

We can't see it now, being in the PO temporary state, of course.

Of course.

But God is moving right here forever.

He does not exist. Prove me wrong, else my simpler conclusion is correct.

Many think they know, and believe so. You, for instance seem to think you know. If not what are you trying to argue about, if you jnow not wherof you speak?

You said:
Most of us know that there is more than the physical.
I was merely pointing out that you do not, in fact, know.

No, by taking Jesus, He gives us a sound mind.

I say that what you think is Jesus is actually your devil. Prove me wrong.

Solved.

I'm sorry? Did your saying, 'solved', somehow do something? Please, give us this proof of the nature of reality!

Only by your insane logic. Aside from that it is very very very very well known indeed.

Logic does not come in forms of sanity, it simply is. And no, your god is not 'very well known'. Knowledge (especially 'very well known' knowledge) requires proof, and there is no proof of your god.

Do you think you know that?! By your own words, you can't! Think about it. You just killed your own arguement.

I know what you cannot know, by simple application of definitions.
So no, I did not kill my own argument. I am not a Creationist, after all.

We don't have the kind of proof you can get hold of. We have lots of proofs, and indications, and evidences, in many cases. The rest take it by faith till they do. We will all get it sooner or later, even if only in death.

I.e., you have no proof. Fine.

Why? How is it important?

Because that is what we are discussing, or perhaps you forgot again:
Me: Pipe dream? Ah, yes, you have 'divine knowledge'.
You: All of us do who read the bible, in a believing way.
Me: The same claim could be make about Muslims and the Qu'ran. Your point?
You: I don't hear them making it.
Me: Have you never seen a defence of the Qu'ran then?
You: Why? How is it important?

You up to speed now?

Maybe that's why you like it so much?

I like it because it is a fundamental logical principle, nothing more.

You think it cuts out God.

Your god is inconsequential to me. Do not suppose that I revolve around Christianity.

Do you have one you can show us??????

I suggest you look down at a particle accelerator, or up at a black hole.
By the way, 6 '?'s. I really got on your nerves now.

Since all the universe and the planet was supposedly in the little speck, we can say it was a different entity.

I'm sorry? How is 'the planet' not included in 'all the universe'?
I tread close to something I feel sure you will jump on, but nevermind: the universe was in a different state at the beginning of the universe, and is continually changing states as a result of interactions governed by physical laws; but there was not one almighty switch ~4000 years ago.
Oh, and no, the universe is the same physical entity that it always was.

The razor just got you.

Good thing your razor is blunt.

Dream soup.

Care to elaborate? I take it you do not mean either a literal dream nor a literal soup.

Your so called science of the unknown is.

So, you think, therefore inconclusive science is fairy tales?

If you knew that you'd be God.

Nonsense. You can know the origin of something without being it!

Try understanding the spiritual, and PO, and merged, before you try to figure out how He was always here.

The origin of your god is inconsequential to your bizarre concepts of 'PO' and 'merged'.

First of all, what kind of energy was it?

That is what I am asking you.

Who says it was energy that did it?

Because the universe is comprised of energy. It must have come from somewhere. Since you reject creation ex nihilo, you must provide an alternate solution.

You are stabbing in the dark here.

Says the boy who rejects empiricism.

Who thinks the universe is self assembling????

Scientists, and most humans.

Why not a jet? It is far less complex?

The universe is just a system of interactions governed by overarching rules, in turn ruled by logic. A jet, however, is much more specific.

The same past, if you think about it, is NOT identical to a DIFFERENT past!

You miss the point. You argue for a 'different past', I argue for a 'same past'. Neither of us have evidence, so we turn to logic to see which is preferrable. Occam's Razor says that, in this situation, the simpler is to be preferred. Since I advocate consistency, and you advocate change (and, by extension, and agent of change), I have the simpler argument.

So if it is evil, and immoral it is simple??

What? I specficially stated that: 'Simple is definied to be void of subjective or qualitative morality'.
Perhaps you think a lack of morality is the same as immorality? This is like saying an atheist is the same as an antitheist.

False prophesy.

I'm sorry? How on Earth do you know this? Oh, wait, don't tell me, your god told you. How convinient.

You assume psycho course can tell us anything about love????

Whyever not?

No, that is a base, and PO attempt to explain the greatest power in the universe.

Nonsense. Love has no power. It is an abstract concept attributed to certain neurochemical responses.

It can span the breadth of the universe in less than a moment of time!

How? It has no physical presence. It does not move, it is just an abstract concept, an emotion.

It can heal broken hearts,

Hardly. Ruptured cardiovascular systems are not repaired with 'love'. This is the kind of mentality that causes Christian Scientists to let their loved ones unneccessarily die.

and in conjunction with the spiritual world, change the universe.

Pure romantic conjecture.

They are not cross universe state forces.

That is because there are no other universe states! Prove me wrong.

Love is so much more lasting, and powerful than all these, our mind can't comprehend at the moment.

Nonsense. You are revelling in romantic drivel suitable for Readers Digest. Come back when you are going to be less fanciful.

 

[dad]

What about love here in the universe now? Doesn't it accomplish anything?

There is all kinds of love, motherly, sexual, friendship, comradary, pets, etc etc. It accomplishes plenty. Without it, maybe all children would be aborted, or killed soon after, and the race would die! People would not marry, even, in large numbers, and animals might already ne extict. Wars would be multipied a millionfold, and pverty would be even more extreme. Life, basicallly, literally could not exist on earth, or in the spiritual universe, without it! It is the greatest force in both universes, and the merged one coming.

 

[dad]

But are you not also tailoring your Bible to suit your version of science? You believe dragons do not exist in reality, so this part of the Bible is non-literal to you, but you believe that the Flood and Eden actually occured as written in the Bible, so this part is literal. How detailed or asbstract a verse is is irrelevant; what is important is how it suits your belief system.

No, because the bible tells us what the symbolism means in these cases.

The example of the dragon: it is possible, albiet minutely so, that the dragon physically existed, and it's physiology was devised to represent kings etc, but it physically existed. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest metaphor and abstraction.

Of course the dragon physically existed, I would think. But the verses in the bible are talking of a beast that had seven heads, or kigdoms, and we can tell what each one was historically. We know, for example, that Rome was one of them. We also know that the horns on the dragon represent ten certain kings in the endtime here, or countries. Etc. So it is not a living, literal, physical dragon. There may be good reasons the devil is likened to a dragon.

All unsubstantiated, all subjectively believed with no evidence presented or presentable.

We disagree, as those that experience such things are not on the outside looking in.

Indeed. That is why I ask for substantiation, and do not accept your claims on blind faith.

You can't usually get that from the outside.

1) Lack of proof does not constitute disproof

Or proof. So, you got nothin.

2) Deep Time is not part of Evolution

No, but it is part of the claim, for the theory. It cannot be seperated, cause one could not exist without the other. They have a symbiotic, albeit imaginary relationship!

4) The 'same past' assumption is more probable than the 'different past' assumption; indeed, the 'different past' assumption is made more improbable by the logical inconsistencies invoked

Your thinking one thing or another is 'probable' that is just a baseless assumption is neither here no there.

The KJV translates the word מכשפה (M'khasephah) as 'witch'. The word מכשפה means 'someone who malevolently uses spoken curses to hurt people', something modern witches are forbidden from doing.

Not some I met. Depends on the level. Besides, Opposing the truth is hurting others. Look at this guy.
Act 13: 6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

It should also be noted that, in the Bible stories of involving מכשפה (Endor, Saul, etc), emphasis is placed on punishing those who claim to have powers they do not (e.g., summoning the dead, 'seeing times', etc)
Modern witches, however, do have the powers we claim to.

Well, the hebrew word for witch is translated as this

(Piel) to practice witchcraft or sorcery, use witchcraft

1. sorcerer, sorceress (participle)

http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03784
And sorcerer in Greek, as this
a magus

1. the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.
2. the oriental wise men (astrologers) who, having discovered by the rising of a remarkable star that the Messiah had just been born, came to Jerusalem to worship him
3. a false prophet and sorcerer

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3097http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?=3097

Looks like a pretty wide brush to me.

Either way, suffering is avoidable for an omnipotent entity (indeed, it is a logical impossibility for suffering to coexist with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity).

No. Not with real free will. Add sin and free will, and we got what we got.

Then non-PO is the null set. There is nothing besides the universe. That is the whole definition of 'universe'. Unless, of course, you have another definition of that.

There is nothing besides the PO universe for science. That is the state we live in. The spiritual, is not "in" the physical, it is seperate.

I have. Perhaps you should too.
You claimed that the Bible's prophecies are somehow more 'real' than non-Biblical prophecies. I asked for justification, and you gave me a non sequitur. Perhaps you would like to clarify now?

They are the real deal, because they, and only they are 100% accurate.

Perhaps. But why are they imperfect?

Because they are not direct spirit of God, uncut, and pure. They are spiritual, likely, so they do hit it right often, but not in the same league. They are in the minor league.

There is no reason, not even Biblical, to assume that the physical laws of nature are mutable.

Yes there is, and I have given lots.

What is there to not figure out? You claim the absurd, and then insult anyone who does not accept you on blind faith alone.

You claim the absurd, and then insult anyone who does not accept you on blind faith alone. Then you call it science to boot. I claim to go beyond your dead end. I welcome all to do likewise.

Because it is the most probable. Why accept the improbable?

God is probable, I accept Him. Your idea of probable doesn't come fully loaded. It doesn't have the weight of the bible behind it, the Big Boys. It simply fizzles out as science leaves off, and raw assumption takes the floor.

Logic. There is no why, it simply is. The simpler is the more probable, and the simpler is a 'same past' assumption.

There is no why?? It just simply is as you decide to spin a yarn? The same past is complicated, creatorless, unproven, unprovable, and so utterly absurd, that it offends reason.

Ah, so because no proof of a 'same past' is given, you automatically assume a 'different past'. Yes, that's great logic there.

No, I assume that we must look to something other than what just failed us. Not a journey all take, to shine the light of God on the way. But it does a great job, and I see no other light on the highway to heaven. Behind, is the dark dead end of science, where it gleefully plays in the sandbox of it's limitations.

Not really. Science adopts assumptions that are the simplest, as per reductionism.

Yes, travelling on the wings of assumption alone, they reduce the entire universe so small, we could fit all trillions of galaxies, earth, sun, moon and stars, into a grape seed.

If you have no scientific evidence, then what are you doing here?

If you have no scientific evidence, then what are you doing here? -With a claim of sciene, no less!?

Bear in mind that science is not just facts and figures, it is fundamentally logic, assumption, and probability.

Ha. Yeah right. Then I win.

Hardly. The void is preferable to your god.

The devoid seem to think so.

Things that are well known are, indeed, well known. That is a tautology. However, the existance of spirituality is not well known, it is well believed. Knowledge comes from proof, not faith.

Says you. The rest of us know there is a spiritual. Just cause science can't know means nothing. That is not the defining measure of all non physical reality.

Care to show me how my claim that 'The Bible contains no verses that state or otherwise imply an alternate set of physical laws once applying to this our universe' is false?

For a bible case, just consider that Adam could not live forever in this state, in the PO earth. Nor could heaven.

You said: Yes, it says in the bible these heavens shall pass away and new ones come.
I question the validity of this claim. Justify it, or my doubts will be proven correct.

2Pe 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Pe 3:12 - Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 2Pe 3:13 - Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Re 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

I'm sorry? Is the Bible the sole property of Christians?

Not the paper, but most of the locked content. Yes!

Logic is basic, by definition, but not the Bible.

Not any more basic than common sense, and where is that these days?

My apologies. I meant:
'this agent makes your assumption less simple, and is therefore rejected by Occam's Razor with respect to my assumption.'

Well, I rest my case on what is simple. Creation, and heaven coming, or the mind numbing twisting, changing, same past speculations.

Pure conjecture again. What makes you think that your god will live with man (humanity?)?

Re 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

If it is out of my realm, it is certainly out of yours (you reject empiricism and the past, remember?).
In any case, it does not answer my question.

No, I accept the past. All of it, and all evidence from it, remember? I just don't believe your baseless assumption of a same past.

No, we do not. The philosopher's nothing is quite different to an absence of matter.

So what does that nothing matter more than the next nothing? How much of your nothing can we put on the scale??

My assumption is that the physical laws are immutable. How is that complex?

It leads to a mind melt of strange conclusions, all of which have to be propped up, and painted, and glued together, and welded, and are still full of unkown energy, and matter, and specks appearing with a universe in them, and etc etc etc.

1) There is no evidence outside of the scientific method. That is the very definition of evidence.

There is nothing that the natural only method can measure but the PO, by definition.

2) Colourful metaphors do nothing to substantiate your claims. As an anonymous Native American woman once said, 'If you take [a copy of] the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind.'. Does my colourful metaphor become more evidenced now?

You have nothing but wind?

Not you, clearly. Counter-intuitive claims do not lost validity for being counter-intuitive, but intuitive claims gain support for being intuitive. Logic again, mon ami.

Or is it counter logic?

I'm sorry? Do you even know what an assumption is? If an assumption is supported, then it is not an assumption!

Depends how well supported it might be. Also how much counter support there might be for some other assumption.

Nonsense. Give me one assumption that is backed up.

I assume that when I bang on a key, on the keyboard, it makes a letter, or number, or such on a screen. I banged out a lot, and it repeatedly works.

Whyever not? By your logic, we know nothing beyond our own existance.

No, you know nothing. We know plenty about the beyond.

Care to show me how cumulative natural processes are more complex than a god?

Care to show how life got so complex?

Cute. Did you dad tell you that?

No.

You claimed that I did not have complete thoughts because I use questions such as 'why' and 'how'.

No, because you never included the rest of the thought with the words. A complete thought question has more than "Why"?

Why? Oh, wait, you don't read references, do you. Why are there limits to what laws can do?

Physical laws can't go beyond the present natural.

With mutable physical laws, observation (and, hence, facts and evidnece) becomes unreliable.

So, what, who needs facts? You muted them?

If these are unreliable, then we do not know anything about the real universe.

You said it.

That is not a forté, that is a logically inconsistent claim. You claim that your assumption is more scientific, yet you still do not explain why it is scientific.

I said
'I have more than science to rely on, as well as all the science you do'
In other words, my ideas agree with science as well. But, that I also have the bible, and known spiritual factor.

Indeed. However, it often proves, disproves, supports, or counter-supports a beliefs. You fail to understand this still, and you also fail to understand that widespread beliefs can be false.

Well, as far as beliefs go, that is all you have. No wonder you want to keep the other majority beliefs out!

 

[Nathan Poe]

There is all kinds of love, motherly, sexual, friendship, comradary, pets, etc etc.

Yes, yes... "Love makes the world go 'round..." and all that.

You're the first person I ever met who took that literally. But then again, you take everything literally, so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

It accomplishes plenty. Without it, maybe all children would be aborted, or killed soon after, and the race would die!

Most animals aren't capable of what we would call "love," and yet their races are continuing on just fine.

People would not marry, even, in large numbers, and animals might already ne extict.

What's the connection?

Wars would be multipied a millionfold, and pverty would be even more extreme.

And yet, "God" the alleged source of this love, is the cause of it all.

Life, basicallly, literally could not exist on earth, or in the spiritual universe, without it!

Prove it.

It is the greatest force in both universes, and the merged one coming.

And you're making stuff up again.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, because the bible tells us what the symbolism means in these cases.

In Eden there is the 'Tree of Life'. This tree is clearly symbolic of Life, and not a literal tree. Therefore, there was no Tree of Life, and hence no literal Eden.

Of course the dragon physically existed, I would think. But the verses in the bible are talking of a beast that had seven heads, or kigdoms, and we can tell what each one was historically. We know, for example, that Rome was one of them. We also know that the horns on the dragon represent ten certain kings in the endtime here, or countries. Etc. So it is not a living, literal, physical dragon. There may be good reasons the devil is likened to a dragon.

You contradict yourself. Your first statement is 'Of course the dragon physically existed...' (though you seem less sure of this immeditately after you said it; 'I would think'), and your penultimate statement is '...it is not a living, literal, physical dragon.' Which is it?

Could you post all the Biblical verses pertaining to the dragon? I wish to study it further.

We disagree, as those that experience such things are not on the outside looking in.

Indeed. Those experiances are called 'subjective', since they cannot be independantly verified by an outside observer.

You can't usually get that from the outside.

Then why claim to have evidence of your case is you readily admit that you cannot substantiate it?

Or proof. So, you got nothin.

Neither do you. But, once again, you miss the point. I never claimed to have evidence, and you seem to think that this 'makes [my] whole old age evo case is null and void'.
I'd like to point out thatneither Deep Time or Evolution are my current case, but I will defend them if you bring them into our discussion.

No, but it is part of the claim, for the theory.

You ignored what I said. Deep Time and Evolution are not related. Common ancestry is a product of Deep Time and Evolution, but this is what happens when two independant phenomena interact. The Theory of Evolution deals with how Evolution happens, and not with how old the Universe/Earth/etc is.

It cannot be seperated, cause one could not exist without the other.

I beg to differ. Evolution happens every time an organism reproduces, and this happens even in the Creationists universe, where Deep Time does not exist.

Your thinking one thing or another is 'probable' that is just a baseless assumption is neither here no there.

On the contrary, Occam's Razor posits that the assumption which invokes the least entities is more likely to be de re true.

Not some I met.

Care to elaborate?

Depends on the level.

Level?

Besides, Opposing the truth is hurting others.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the truth is more painful than a lie.

Well, the hebrew word for witch is translated as this http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03784
And sorcerer in Greek, as this http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3097

This is what I said. Biblical witches are those who 'see times' (i.e., divination, necromancy, astrology, etc), and claim to have power they actually don't. Modern witchcraft differs from this.

No. Not with real free will. Add sin and free will, and we got what we got.

You misunderstand. An omnibenevolent entity cannot allow suffering to exist, and an omnipotent entity can do any logical action. Since your god claims to be both of these, your god should be able to cease all suffering.
You have yet to explain why free will justifies suffering.

There is nothing besides the PO universe for science. That is the state we live in. The spiritual, is not "in" the physical, it is seperate.

Ah, so now you change your definition. As you wish.

They are the real deal, because they, and only they are 100% accurate.

But you just said that ' No [Qu'ran etc] prophesies are 100 % right.'
Contradiction is a terrible thing to have in one's arguments.

Because they are not direct spirit of God, uncut, and pure. They are spiritual, likely, so they do hit it right often, but not in the same league. They are in the minor league.

But surely, if they are 100% accurate, then they are perfect prophecies

Yes there is, and I have given lots.

You have given nothing. Please, cite all your Biblical verses here. I wish to study them. If I cannot debate with you in the scientific arena, I may as well delve into the Biblical; after all, where else can you get such ideas.

You claim the absurd, and then insult anyone who does not accept you on blind faith alone. Then you call it science to boot. I claim to go beyond your dead end. I welcome all to do likewise.

You tout the improbable as logically preferable. This is absurd.

God is probable, I accept Him.

On the contrary, your particular god is a logical impossibility. Deities that do not contradict themselves are still improbable, since they have no supporting evidence to justify their invokation.

Your idea of probable doesn't come fully loaded.

My definition of probable is, in this context, 'the most likely to de re true', nothing more.

It doesn't have the weight of the bible behind it, the Big Boys.

The Bible does not carry any weight, since it is not substantiated. How would it differ if I cited a book of my own writing, and claimed it divinely inspired?

No, I assume that we must look to something other than what just failed us.

No, you assume a 'different past' with no reason.[/quote]

Not a journey all take, to shine the light of God on the way. But it does a great job, and I see no other light on the highway to heaven. Behind, is the dark dead end of science, where it gleefully plays in the sandbox of it's limitations.

What a colourful analogy. Perhaps you would like to include a soliloque to the Cross Universe State Force, aka Love?

Ha. Yeah right. Then I win.

I'm sorry? Care to show me how science is anything but logic, probability, and assumption?

The devoid seem to think so.

I'm sorry?

Says you.

Not quite. I am working here with definitions; something is known to be true if it cannot be false.

For a bible case, just consider that Adam could not live forever in this state, in the PO earth. Nor could heaven.

I disagree. There is no reason why humans could not be sufficiently augmented to survive for ~1000 years. Of course, without assuming such augmentation, it is more probable that Adam did not live to almost 1000 years, rather than invoking a whole alternate universe.

Not the paper, but most of the locked content. Yes!

Hah!

Not any more basic than common sense, and where is that these days?/

Common sense not basic by a long shot. It is millions of years of evolved instincts and behavioural patterns embedded in our brains.

Well, I rest my case on what is simple. Creation, and heaven coming, or the mind numbing twisting, changing, same past speculations.

I like this. You call the 'same past' assumption changing. Do you even know what the assumption is? The physical laws are the same.

No, I accept the past. All of it, and all evidence from it, remember? I just don't believe your baseless assumption of a same past.

Why do you believe your assumption of a different past over my assumption of a same past?

So what does that nothing matter more than the next nothing? How much of your nothing can we put on the scale??

You misunderstand. An absence of matter is not strictly empty: it contains quantum fluctuations (quantum foam, etc), and the spacetime continuum. The philosophers nothing is an absence of anything, including reality and divinity.

It leads to a mind melt of strange conclusions, all of which have to be propped up, and painted, and glued together, and welded, and are still full of unkown energy, and matter, and specks appearing with a universe in them, and etc etc etc.

On the contrary, your 'PO' universe also includes these. Current physical laws predict micro black holes, and dark matter & energy.

There is nothing that the natural only method can measure but the PO, by definition.

The scientific method does not explicitly state 'natural only'. This is your amalgamation.

You have nothing but wind?

Once again, you have missed the point.

Or is it counter logic?

I think I quite clearly said 'logic'. Are you now incapable of reading, as well as suffering from sudden bouts of forgetfulness?

Depends how well supported it might be.

No, it does not. An assumption has no support, by definition.

I assume that when I bang on a key, on the keyboard, it makes a letter, or number, or such on a screen. I banged out a lot, and it repeatedly works.

This is not an assumption, this is a prediction.

No, you know nothing. We know plenty about the beyond.

Hah. Subjective nonsense.

Care to show how life got so complex?

Life is not complex, so there is nothing to explain. Now, answer my question:
Care to show me how cumulative natural processes are more complex than a god?

No, because you never included the rest of the thought with the words. A complete thought question has more than "Why"?

Oh, I see. You are confusing 'incomplete thought' with 'sentence fragment'. But sentence fragments can be valid so long as their reference is clear.

Physical laws can't go beyond the present natural.

Care to define this 'present natural'?

So, what, who needs facts? You muted them?

I'm sorry? You argue for mutable phyiscal laws, not me.

You said it.

Indeed I did. Your point?

I said
'I have more than science to rely on, as well as all the science you do'
In other words, my ideas agree with science as well. But, that I also have the bible, and known spiritual factor.

No. Your ideas violate the scientific method, and are therefore unscientific. You do not agree with science, nor the scientific consensus, nor, indeed, with the rest of humanity.
Furthermore, the Bible has no substantiable validity, and this 'known spiritual factor' is nothing more than popular belief.


Incedentally, I notice that you have ignored the entire of the second part to my second post. Any particular reason?

 

[dad]

Yes, yes... "Love makes the world go 'round..." and all that.

True.

You're the first person I ever met who took that literally. But then again, you take everything literally, so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

Only what needs to be.

Most animals aren't capable of what we would call "love," and yet their races are continuing on just fine.

Says who? Ever try to rob a bear of her young?

What's the connection?

If we don't marry, there are not enough kids. If we didn't love pets, and animals somewhat, we might kill most of them.

And yet, "God" the alleged source of this love, is the cause of it all.

He is the great spirit of Love that created it all. Love is God. That's why He sent Jesus.

And you're making stuff up again.

No, the bible tells us God is love, and that a new heavens is coming. You are making things up.

 

[dad]

In Eden there is the 'Tree of Life'. This tree is clearly symbolic of Life, and not a literal tree. Therefore, there was no Tree of Life, and hence no literal Eden.

No, because a guard had to be posted to keep us from getting in the garden again, and eating of that tree. Then we would have been immortal again.

You contradict yourself. Your first statement is 'Of course the dragon physically existed...' (though you seem less sure of this immeditately after you said it; 'I would think'), and your penultimate statement is '...it is not a living, literal, physical dragon.' Which is it?

Generally speaking, as a creature, I believe dragons existed. The specific dragon in Revelations is the devil, not a dinosaur.

Could you post all the Biblical verses pertaining to the dragon? I wish to study it further.

Well, here are a few key ones germane to the discussion.

Re 12:4 - And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Re 12:7 - And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Re 12:9 - And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Indeed. Those experiances are called 'subjective', since they cannot be independantly verified by an outside observer.

Call em whatever you want, they are so many, that all history is full of them, and the present. Just cause you can't subject them to your tests doesn't mean they are the less for your pitifully inadequate tests.

Then why claim to have evidence of your case is you readily admit that you cannot substantiate it?

Because there is plenty of evidence for a spiritual, and an after life. We aren't talking sciencetific evidence. We left that way back at the dead end, where it was stuck in the dark with no light to light the way.

Neither do you. But, once again, you miss the point. I never claimed to have evidence, and you seem to think that this 'makes [my] whole old age evo case is null and void'.

Bingo! It has to be thrown out of court, like any case with no evidence at all.

I'd like to point out thatneither Deep Time or Evolution are my current case, but I will defend them if you bring them into our discussion.

Then what was your case again?

You ignored what I said. Deep Time and Evolution are not related.

How long ago was the rock crack slime popping out all life on earth???? Shold we say, 4 years ago? Or is deep time actuall involved in the story??

Common ancestry is a product of Deep Time and Evolution, but this is what happens when two independant phenomena interact. The Theory of Evolution deals with how Evolution happens, and not with how old the Universe/Earth/etc is.

OK, so as just that, a study of remnant creation traits, it is fine, if it stays in bounds.

On the contrary, Occam's Razor posits that the assumption which invokes the least entities is more likely to be de re true.

Well, show me the doe re me. Prove there is no God, and we should not invoke Him. It is not simple stuffing the entire universe in a thinble, and getting to a point where the laws of physics break down. Nothing about your idea is remotely similar to simple. The only thing about it is you simply want to make sure God is out of the picture. That is de re true.

Care to elaborate?

Not really.

Level?

level.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the truth is more painful than a lie.

How would you know?

This is what I said. Biblical witches are those who 'see times' (i.e., divination, necromancy, astrology, etc), and claim to have power they actually don't. Modern witchcraft differs from this.

Who said they had to power? Why do you think they were employed? Of course they had some smarts, and some powers, normally. It was just like playing with matches, compared to lighning bolts of God's people, of course, but they had some power. Look at Egypt, they had sticks turn to serpents. Then our stick did as well, and ate all their serpents.

You misunderstand. An omnibenevolent entity cannot allow suffering to exist, and an omnipotent entity can do any logical action. Since your god claims to be both of these, your god should be able to cease all suffering.
You have yet to explain why free will justifies suffering.

So, what, a good parent cannot allow a child to live if she or he gets am ouwie??

Ah, so now you change your definition. As you wish.

No, the idea of the split, is that the spiritual was seperated.

But you just said that ' No [Qu'ran etc] prophesies are 100 % right.'
Contradiction is a terrible thing to have in one's arguments.

I mean that, as a whole, the prohesies of any other book are not all right. They may be 70% accurate, or 62 % accurate, etc. Not 100%.

You have given nothing. Please, cite all your Biblical verses here. I wish to study them. If I cannot debate with you in the scientific arena, I may as well delve into the Biblical; after all, where else can you get such ideas.

Well, having admitted losing the science case, and not knowing much about the bible, how is it you think you are able to debate it????/ Learn, maybe. Debate? No.
But, here is the link again, for the split stuff.
http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip

You tout the improbable as logically preferable. This is absurd.

Only if you dictate what is logical, and probable based on nothing.

On the contrary, your particular god is a logical impossibility. Deities that do not contradict themselves are still improbable, since they have no supporting evidence to justify their invokation.

Your logic is a logical impossibilty in ruling God out.

My definition of probable is, in this context, 'the most likely to de re true', nothing more.

The most likely in whose opinion?? Based on what??

The Bible does not carry any weight, since it is not substantiated. How would it differ if I cited a book of my own writing, and claimed it divinely inspired?

It was not sealed in the blood of those that died testifying it was true, supported by billions of witnesses that felt it worked over time, and one of the major beliefs on earth. The bible has weight.

No, you assume a 'different past' with no reason.

No, with no reason from science to assume a same or different past, i look to other reasons. Reasons, nonetheless.

What a colourful analogy. Perhaps you would like to include a soliloque to the Cross Universe State Force, aka Love?

Across all universal lines, it's clear no distance matters any
Love travels leaving us it's signs, of which there are so many.
Hope to go on, a mother's care, a friend that's like a brother.
Neverending life and joy, that will do on, one day after another

I'm sorry? Care to show me how science is anything but logic, probability, and assumption?

Well real science is that. But those fish don't swim out of the fishbowl.

I'm sorry?

You claimed
The void is preferable to your god.
I simply point out that those devoid of God seem to think so.

Not quite. I am working here with definitions; something is known to be true if it cannot be false.

So all we need is something that cannot be false to fit that then. Any suggestions?

..it is more probable that Adam did not live to almost 1000 years, rather than invoking a whole alternate universe.

You are talking about tinking with the present processes, and trying to Jimmy genes, and such, to delay it. I talked of a different past, and process, so they are not equal ideas.

Hah!

Guess you grasped the concept there.

Common sense not basic by a long shot. It is millions of years of evolved instincts and behavioural patterns embedded in our brains.

Says you. If that were true, why is there less of it now than last generation?

I like this. You call the 'same past' assumption changing. Do you even know what the assumption is? The physical laws are the same.

Science books get old in a hurry. A book 20 years old is out of date. That means it changes. Most scientists think that is a good thing. The always assume the past was the same state, for no reason, that is not what changes.

Why do you believe your assumption of a different past over my assumption of a same past?

Yours has no science or bible, what is left??

You misunderstand. An absence of matter is not strictly empty: it contains quantum fluctuations (quantum foam, etc), and the spacetime continuum. The philosophers nothing is an absence of anything, including reality and divinity.

Why would I care about the depths of thought of a philospher? Some used to argue over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, I hear. Why would I care what they speculate??

On the contrary, your 'PO' universe also includes these. Current physical laws predict micro black holes, and dark matter & energy.

But why does it 'predict' dark energy, for example? I think it is because it need something to explain something that is going on, and to do is using PO assumptions only. Think about it. If there was a different past, could that explain things, rather than dreaming up something PO??

The scientific method does not explicitly state 'natural only'. This is your amalgamation.

"

Can only seek answers about the natural world but cannot answer ultimate questions (Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?).​

..

Seek predictions about future natural events based on observational evidence and testing.​

..

Explanations are based on observation, evidence, and testing.​

..

Explanations cannot include supernatural forces.​

..

The hypothesis used in tests must be able to be disproved.​

..

Knowledge may change as new data arises.
..
All knowledge must have peer review and verification."
http://users.aristotle.net/~asta/science.htm​

So, it sure sounds natural only to me.​

Once again, you have missed the point.​

I think I quite clearly said 'logic'. Are you now incapable of reading, as well as suffering from sudden bouts of forgetfulness?

Your so called logic runs counter to logic of others. Who wrote the logic book? No one.

This is not an assumption, this is a prediction.

If I bang on a key, I assume it makes a letter. It is a fair use of the word. Stop trying to be a word cop. You use'm like you want to, I'll do the same.

Life is not complex, so there is nothing to explain.

Life is not complex??? Hello.

Now, answer my question:
Care to show me how cumulative natural processes are more complex than a god?

No, but any child ought to realize life is complex.

Oh, I see. You are confusing 'incomplete thought' with 'sentence fragment'. But sentence fragments can be valid so long as their reference is clear.

That's what you think. They need to stand on their own 2 feet if you think I should reply to them.

Care to define this 'present natural'?

The physical universe.

I'm sorry? You argue for mutable phyiscal laws, not me.

No, the same laws since they came to be.

Indeed I did. Your point?

No. Your ideas violate the scientific method, and are therefore unscientific.

Only where the science ends, they agree in the here and now. Where they go further, your ideas do not agree with science either, so why not!

You do not agree with science, nor the scientific consensus, nor, indeed, with the rest of humanity.

Look who doesn't agree there is a spiritual! Me and science walk hand in hand as far as the little fella can walk at least!!

Furthermore, the Bible has no substantiable validity, and this 'known spiritual factor' is nothing more than popular belief.

It is backed like nothing on earth, and the spiritual world is well known in the extreme for a trillion reasons you can't refute.

Incedentally, I notice that you have ignored the entire of the second part to my second post. Any particular reason?

What was the jist of it? I assume there was a reason, such as it was dealt with already.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, because a guard had to be posted to keep us from getting in the garden again, and eating of that tree. Then we would have been immortal again.

So why was the tree created in the first place? It is uneccesary temptation.

Generally speaking, as a creature, I believe dragons existed.

Why do you believe this?

Call em whatever you want, they are so many, that all history is full of them, and the present. Just cause you can't subject them to your tests doesn't mean they are the less for your pitifully inadequate tests.

'Pitifully inadequate'? Wow, you still don't gettit it: ad hominems don't work. Never have, never will.

And, once again, mass belief does not equate proof. People believed in geocentrism, but that turned out to be wrong.

Because there is plenty of evidence for a spiritual, and an after life. We aren't talking sciencetific evidence.

There is no other sort of evidence.

Bingo! It has to be thrown out of court, like any case with no evidence at all.

1) Lack of evidence is not disproof (thrown out of court?)
2) Your own claims also lack evidence. Should they not also be discarded?
3) Before you start with your 'but we have known spiritual! Known Spiritual!', bear in mind that this is not pertinent to the discussion, no matter how many times you say it.

Then what was your case again?

That the physical laws are immutable. Surely you must at least remember that?

How long ago was the rock crack slime popping out all life on earth???? Shold we say, 4 years ago? Or is deep time actuall involved in the story??

As I clearly stated, it is Common Ancestry that is dependant on Deep Time, not Evolution. It has, is, and continually will be observed; it is a common misconception, and in actual fact Evolution is an instantaneous process (or, if talking about the evolution of systems, organs, taxa, etc, it is a sequence of instantaneous processes).

OK, so as just that, a study of remnant creation traits, it is fine, if it stays in bounds.

'In bounds'? What, pray tell, are these boundries you fear will be crossed?

Well, show me the doe re me.

Excuse me? Oh, I see, humour.

Prove there is no God, and we should not invoke Him.

Unnecessary. A deity is a highly complex entity, indeed one of the (if not the) most complex. To invoke one causes your argument to become exceedingly complex unless you can simultaneously explain all the unknowns pertaining to said deity. Since you have yet to do that, your argument remains exceedingly complex, and is thus not preferred by Occam's Razor.
Bear in mind that this is all probability, with no objective evidence. We must deal with this logically, unless objective evidence is presented.

It is not simple stuffing the entire universe in a thinble, and getting to a point where the laws of physics break down.

I'm sorry? Where have the laws of physics broken down?

Nothing about your idea is remotely similar to simple.

My assumption is that there was never a change in the physical laws. How is that anything but simple? It is you who wish to invoke an agent of change.

The only thing about it is you simply want to make sure God is out of the picture.

Your god is inconsequential. He may, or may not, exist. However, the point is that as an agent of change in the physical laws, he is highly improbable.

That is de re true.

Learn your Latin.

Not really.

If you will not elaborate on this, then I have no choice but to assume that you are lying (in case you forget, we are talking about witches and definitions thereof).

level.

Cute. I was asking what you meant by 'level'.

How would you know?

Because there are situations in which being told the truth is more painful than being told a lie. For example, it is more painful to be truthfully told that a loved one died in agony, than it is to be falsely told that they passed away peacefully in their sleep.

Who said they had to power? Why do you think they were employed? Of course they had some smarts, and some powers, normally. It was just like playing with matches, compared to lighning bolts of God's people, of course, but they had some power. Look at Egypt, they had sticks turn to serpents. Then our stick did as well, and ate all their serpents.

What do you know of magick and the origin of the magicians power? I'd wager that I know more of this than you, mon ami.

So, what, a good parent cannot allow a child to live if she or he gets am ouwie??

Not if the parent is truely benevolent and truely omnipotent. And let's not forget omniscient.

I mean that, as a whole, the prohesies of any other book are not all right. They may be 70% accurate, or 62 % accurate, etc. Not 100%.

So you retract your previous statement then?

Well, having admitted losing the science case,

I admitted no such thing. You are ignorant of convention and common terminology, you do not appear to be able to comprehend simple concepts and ideas, and, above all, your reject logic and empiricism!

and not knowing much about the bible,

Do not presume to know my Biblical lore. I could just as easily claim that you do not know much about your precious Bible.

Only if you dictate what is logical,

Logic is not dictated, it simply is.

Your logic is a logical impossibilty in ruling God out.

Hah! And why, pray tell, must your god exist?

The most likely in whose opinion?? Based on what??

Opinion is irrelevant. Probability is a statistical feature of the universe.

It was not sealed in the blood of those that died testifying it was true, supported by billions of witnesses that felt it worked over time, and one of the major beliefs on earth. The bible has weight.

This is absurd. So what if people died for the Bible? So what if people believe it to be true? So what if Christianity is a major religion? This does nothing for it's validity.

No, with no reason from science to assume a same or different past, i look to other reasons. Reasons, nonetheless.

Then please give these reasons. I did not make a limit to scientific rationale.

Well real science is that. But those fish don't swim out of the fishbowl.

You assume that the fish swim in a bowl. Do not more fish swim in the limitless ocean?

You claimed
The void is preferable to your god.
I simply point out that those devoid of God seem to think so.

Perhaps. But what is your point?

So all we need is something that cannot be false to fit that then. Any suggestions?

Our own personal existances, and the fact that we recieve sensory input. These are the only things that cannot be false. All else is uncertain (albiet highly probable).

You are talking about tinking with the present processes, and trying to Jimmy genes, and such, to delay it. I talked of a different past, and process, so they are not equal ideas.

If the physical laws changed, then human physiology would be grossly inadequate. Osmotic potentials and passive gradients, at the very least, would be radically altered. Alveolar pressure gradients would make breathing impossible (if, indeed, gas even still existed). Digestion and waste removal would simply cease to function. Our neurochemistry would become so unbalanced that we would effectively be on permanent LSD trips.
And this is all with a mild change in one law. Imagine a total switchover.

GIf that were true, why is there less of it now than last generation?

Who says there is any less?

Science books get old in a hurry. A book 20 years old is out of date. That means it changes. Most scientists think that is a good thing. The always assume the past was the same state, for no reason, that is not what changes.

The scientific consensus is dictated by logic and evidence. Since it is logical to assume a 'same past', the consensus has always remained on it.

Yours has no science or bible, what is left??

Mine has logic and probability (and, therefore, science). What relavence does the Bible have?
In any case, why should you accept yours over mine? Mine may be uncertain, but it is a damn sight more probable than yours.

Why would I care about the depths of thought of a philospher?

For one thing, we are discussing the nature of reality and it's fundamental laws, and this falls into the realm of philosophy and physics.

Some used to argue over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, I hear.

You reject philosophy because of this? That's like rejecting all of Physics because of Schrodinger's cat!

But why does it 'predict' dark energy, for example?

Our understanding of the physical laws implies that there is dark energy; that is, energy and matter that we cannot observe. Another prediction of the laws is that there are ~26 dimensions, not our usual 4.

I think it is because it need something to explain something that is going on,

That, my friend, is the whole point of scientific inquiry: to explain why the facts are as they are.

and to do is using PO assumptions only.

Yes, we scientists do love to restrict ourselves to non-Christian ideals.

Think about it. If there was a different past, could that explain things, rather than dreaming up something PO??

Noone is 'dreaming up' these things. They are catagorical observations. It is you who dream up some alternate fantasy universe so that you can ignore objective evidences that contradict your beliefs.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can only seek answers about the natural world but cannot answer ultimate questions (Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?).

..

Seek predictions about future natural events based on observational evidence and testing.​

..

Explanations are based on observation, evidence, and testing.​

..

Explanations cannot include supernatural forces.​

..

The hypothesis used in tests must be able to be disproved.​

..

Knowledge may change as new data arises.
..
All knowledge must have peer review and verification."
http://users.aristotle.net/~asta/science.htm​

So, it sure sounds natural only to me.​

I partially disagree with the ASTA's definitions of scientific knowledge, but that is not the point. The scientific method is what we are talking about, not scientific knowledge. The knowledge is natural by definition, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Your so called logic runs counter to logic of others.

There is only logic. You can derive valid conclusions that may contradict each other, but only one will be sound.
In any case, with whom am I running counter to?

Who wrote the logic book? No one.

Preciesly. Just as noone tells the Earth's gravitational acceleration to be ~9.8 m/s. It simply is.

If I bang on a key, I assume it makes a letter. It is a fair use of the word.

No, it is not. A prediction is a statement that describes a future state. An assumption is a premise taken to be true (for example, we simple assume the Commutative and Associative laws, we do not prove them every time we do addition and multiplication). These are two quite different concepts.

Stop trying to be a word cop.

I am merely giving you the definitions. If you disagree with convention, then you must explain why. You cannot simply state, 'no, you're wrong, I'm right. Why can't you see I'm right????'.

You use'm like you want to, I'll do the same.

No. You use them as they suit your purpose (in a typical ad hoc fashion), and I use them as they are meant to be used.

Life is not complex???

No, it is not. How is life complex? Judging my the lowly three question marks, it cannot be that much of a surprise or an offense to you.

Hello.

Hi

No,

You flat out refuse to answer a sequitur question? Why, then, should I answer you?

but any child ought to realize life is complex.

No. Children can recognise apparent complexity, as our pattern-recognising brains have evolved to do. But true complexity is quite different.

That's what you think.

Indeed. It is absurd to reject a de dicto true statment.

They need to stand on their own 2 feet if you think I should reply to them.

Why? Are you to lazy to look a few pixels up? Are you frightened that you might not be able to work the big bad computer?

The physical universe.

So the 'present natural' is, in fact, the physical universe as defined and agreed by the scientific community?

No, the same laws since they came to be.

Quibble. You argue that they changed from this 'merged' state, to this 'unmerged' state. Thus, the physical laws are mutable in your scenario.

Only where the science ends,

There is no end. Prove me wrong.

they agree in the here and now.

Hardly. You violate the scientific method and therefore are unscientific. How many more times must I say this?

Where they go further,

There is no further. Prove me wrong.

your ideas do not agree with science either,

My ideas are science. I place my scientific opinions with the consensus, with the evidence.

so why not!

What an idiotic mentality. Tell me, do you run around the playground poking people with pencils? Why not indeed.

Look who doesn't agree there is a spiritual!

I'm sorry? I don't see who you're referring to, or what this has to do with anything.

Me and science walk hand in hand as far as the little fella can walk at least!!

Really? But you just agreed that you are unscientific! Please, be consistent.

It is backed like nothing on earth, and the spiritual world is well known in the extreme for a trillion reasons you can't refute.

Unjustified drivil. You make these grandose claims, yet do not provide this backing, these 'trillion extreme reasons'. I wonder if you actually believe what you write?

What was the jist of it? I assume there was a reason, such as it was dealt with already.

The second part was as long as this post, and all the other long posts we've exchanged. Some flow over to a double post, and, occasionally, you ignore the second post. Why?

 

[dad]

So why was the tree created in the first place? It is uneccesary temptation.

I don't know.

Why do you believe this?

A creature mentioned in Job, Chinese history, and the story of saint George and the dragon.

'Pitifully inadequate'? Wow, you still don't gettit it: ad hominems don't work. Never have, never will.

And, once again, mass belief does not equate proof. People believed in geocentrism, but that turned out to be wrong.

No, it just doesn't apply to the present state, it did in early history at least to some extent. And the glaring fact that you have not got tests for the spiritual, to test and prove or disprove it, is not ad anything, it is just fact. You can't go over to some country where a miracle happened last week, and verify it with your truly pitifully inadaquate tests of PO science.

There is no other sort of evidence.

Yes, there is. If I got healed of blindness, I would call it proof for me. Maybe it wouldn't be science, but it sure is evidence, like the man in the bible said.
Joh 9:25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. He had observational evidence --he could now observe, before he couldn't!

1) Lack of evidence is not disproof (thrown out of court?)

Neither does it make a case!

2) Your own claims also lack evidence. Should they not also be discarded?

Only mere PO science evidence, like yours, but there is evidences and close encounters of another kind.

3) Before you start with your 'but we have known spiritual! Known Spiritual!', bear in mind that this is not pertinent to the discussion, no matter how many times you say it.

It ir very relevant as evidence. We have to look at all evidences, scientific, and otherwise if there is none of those.

That the physical laws are immutable. Surely you must at least remember that?

They are temporary, Johnny come lately, here today, gone tommorow laws.

As I clearly stated, it is Common Ancestry that is dependant on Deep Time, not Evolution. It has, is, and continually will be observed; it is a common misconception, and in actual fact Evolution is an instantaneous process (or, if talking about the evolution of systems, organs, taxa, etc, it is a sequence of instantaneous processes).

And, as such a creation trait, and not relevant to a creation evolution debate. That isn't the kind of evolution I am concerned about. It is the anti God so called knowledge, that tries to usurp the creation of God, and give the credit to something else-while also opposing the timeframes of the bible as simply, and historically, and still widely believed.

'In bounds'? What, pray tell, are these boundries you fear will be crossed?

I have no fears at all, the bounds are simply things you cannot cross. Creation is the bounds, and the created kinds, when we talk evolution.

Unnecessary. A deity is a highly complex entity, indeed one of the (if not the) most complex.

How would you know???

To invoke one causes your argument to become exceedingly complex unless you can simultaneously explain all the unknowns pertaining to said deity.

No, just the simple fact He did it all in a week.

I'm sorry? Where have the laws of physics broken down?

Research it, it is pretty basic science. You said something I think about being a 'scientist'?? Strange, I also thought you said something about being 18 years old?? Are you new to this scientist business?? Or did I misunderstand something you said?
The laws break down just before the point it reaches a singularity.

My assumption is that there was never a change in the physical laws. How is that anything but simple? It is you who wish to invoke an agent of change.

Then you don't believe in the big bang.

Your god is inconsequential. He may, or may not, exist. However, the point is that as an agent of change in the physical laws, he is highly improbable.

Opinion.

If you will not elaborate on this, then I have no choice but to assume that you are lying (in case you forget, we are talking about witches and definitions thereof).


Cute. I was asking what you meant by 'level'.

Well, it is off topic, so we can leave it.

Because there are situations in which being told the truth is more painful than being told a lie. For example, it is more painful to be truthfully told that a loved one died in agony, than it is to be falsely told that they passed away peacefully in their sleep.

Fine.

What do you know of magick and the origin of the magicians power? I'd wager that I know more of this than you, mon ami.

I have the greatest magic in the universe. What did Moses know, when his staff (Aaron's) ate the other snakes?? See, we don't need to know any magic, we know the Great Magician.

Not if the parent is truely benevolent and truely omnipotent. And let's not forget omniscient.

Are you kidding? You mean if I scrape my knee, God shoull kill me?? Ridiculous.

So you retract your previous statement then?

I thought I had just explained thing to your understanding. What is it you still misunderstand, then??

I admitted no such thing. You are ignorant of convention and common terminology, you do not appear to be able to comprehend simple concepts and ideas, and, above all, your reject logic and empiricism!

Your admission you have no science and proof for the claimed same past is a de facto admission you have no science case, like it or not. Not for anything but the present, and we all have science for that.

Opinion is irrelevant. Probability is a statistical feature of the universe.

So, a feature of the physical universe, means that it is PO opinion.

This is absurd. So what if people died for the Bible? So what if people believe it to be true? So what if Christianity is a major religion? This does nothing for it's validity.

It shows that people were so sure it was right, they gave up their lives for it. It is a record sealed in the blood of the martyrs, written in the hearts and lives of untold millions still, as well as tried and proven to work by billions over time.

Then please give these reasons. I did not make a limit to scientific rationale.

I id. The bible, and known spiritual we can not ignore, and the agreement with the evidence we do have.

You assume that the fish swim in a bowl. Do not more fish swim in the limitless ocean?

The analogy was that the PO universe was the fishbowl. Let's not pretend you didn't understand.

Perhaps. But what is your point?

That it was the opinion of the devoid, that nothing but a void is better than God.

Our own personal existances, and the fact that we recieve sensory input. These are the only things that cannot be false. All else is uncertain (albiet highly probable).

Nonsense.

If the physical laws changed, then human physiology would be grossly inadequate. Osmotic potentials and passive gradients, at the very least, would be radically altered. Alveolar pressure gradients would make breathing impossible (if, indeed, gas even still existed).

Let us know if you ever meet someone that says physical laws we have changed, then, will you? As it is, the seperation of the spiritual, left us as we are. I have no problems with osmosis, do you??

Who says there is any less?

Common sense isn't so common any more.

The scientific consensus is dictated by logic and evidence. Since it is logical to assume a 'same past', the consensus has always remained on it.

It is only logical as far as partial posession of the facts goes. And it is also logical that it was a different past. Especially since there is no evidence for a same past.

Mine has logic and probability (and, therefore, science). What relavence does the Bible have?

Higher logic, and certainty, all that science has, and infinitely more!

In any case, why should you accept yours over mine? Mine may be uncertain, but it is a damn sight more probable than yours.

A damn sight more unproven, ungodly, and ridiculous is all it is.

For one thing, we are discussing the nature of reality and it's fundamental laws, and this falls into the realm of philosophy and physics.

That's what you think. The only part of reality physics covers is the reality in the box. As for it's philosphy, science is natural philosophy only.

You reject philosophy because of this? That's like rejecting all of Physics because of Schrodinger's cat!

I can take or leave philosophy, don't have much use for it.

Our understanding of the physical laws implies that there is dark energy; that is, energy and matter that we cannot observe. Another prediction of the laws is that there are ~26 dimensions, not our usual 4.

Our understanding of PO laws requires lots of stuff to try and explain things that are here, NOT as a result of the old age creatorless same past theories. Nonsense, mostly.

That, my friend, is the whole point of scientific inquiry: to explain why the facts are as they are.

And it can't begin to do that, when it omits the real reason things are the way they are.

Yes, we scientists do love to restrict ourselves to non-Christian ideals.

We, the citizens of heaven coming love to restrict those that do that to the mists of memory.

 

[dad]

I partially disagree with the ASTA's definitions of scientific knowledge, but that is not the point. The scientific method is what we are talking about, not scientific knowledge. The knowledge is natural by definition, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

The method involves only the natural as well. What else do you think you can observe and test, spooks?

There is only logic. You can derive valid conclusions that may contradict each other, but only one will be sound.
In any case, with whom am I running counter to?

Depends on what you like to call logic on the point you might try to make.

Preciesly. Just as noone tells the Earth's gravitational acceleration to be ~9.8 m/s. It simply is.

No, it was arranged.

No, it is not. A prediction is a statement that describes a future state. An assumption is a premise taken to be true (for example, we simple assume the Commutative and Associative laws, we do not prove them every time we do addition and multiplication). These are two quite different concepts.

No because when you assume the sun will burn out it is a prediction you think the state will be the same in the future. Busted.

I am merely giving you the definitions. If you disagree with convention, then you must explain why. You cannot simply state, 'no, you're wrong, I'm right. Why can't you see I'm right????'.

Rules are made to be broken. Especially PO rules.

No. You use them as they suit your purpose (in a typical ad hoc fashion), and I use them as they are meant to be used.

You assume how things are meant to be, based on assumptions. How solid is that?? No wonder you sometimes wrestle with reality.

No, it is not. How is life complex? Judging my the lowly three question marks, it cannot be that much of a surprise or an offense to you.

Doensn't evolution of simple organisms to more complex ones ring a bell? It isn't my theory, that would be yours. Life is complex. Some say even a bacteria is complex.

You flat out refuse to answer a sequitur question? Why, then, should I answer you?

Your quaetion involved comparing some natural life with God. What do we know about God to make the comparison?

No. Children can recognise apparent complexity, as our pattern-recognising brains have evolved to do. But true complexity is quite different.

You don't define true.

Indeed. It is absurd to reject a de dicto true statment.

Have you ever made one?

Why? Are you to lazy to look a few pixels up? Are you frightened that you might not be able to work the big bad computer?

No, it is good manners to be clear, especially when being as long in the tooth as you.

So the 'present natural' is, in fact, the physical universe as defined and agreed by the scientific community?

Yes. Except, for the far cosmos. There, they dream up stuff, and assign reasons for all we see, based on PO assumptions.

Quibble. You argue that they changed from this 'merged' state, to this 'unmerged' state. Thus, the physical laws are mutable in your scenario.

No, big difference. To change a physical law, would wreck the universe, or world, or really be noticable at least. But since science bases all on what we now have, they notice not what we did have, so know not what to look for, even if they could find it! And where's that!?

There is no end. Prove me wrong.

If there was no end, why the period at the end? Your own sentence betrays you.

Hardly. You violate the scientific method and therefore are unscientific. How many more times must I say this?

None, why lie?

There is no further. Prove me wrong.

I know, there is only the box, prove us wrong. Those are your limitations. As far as you can tell, that is all there is, or was, or will be. But, yet, you can't prove that in any way, and the box has billions of spirits passing through it. You ought to know they come from somewhere, and go somewhere. Maybe some have this little nagging feeling, that true knowledge should account for that well known factor. You can always just ignore it. But don't tell us, 'there are no Alps'. Just cause you never been there.

My ideas are science. I place my scientific opinions with the consensus, with the evidence.

Increasingly shrill, much???

What an idiotic mentality. Tell me, do you run around the playground poking people with pencils? Why not indeed.

I asked, why not? And you go ape? For someone that touts ad hominem as the big bad wicked witch of the west, you practice it a lot. I have to direst at you, the first 4 words of your post here.

Really? But you just agreed that you are unscientific! Please, be consistent.

Science is limited, try and out it together there.

these 'trillion extreme reasons'. I wonder if you actually believe what you write?

I have thousands of my own reasons, ther are billions who believe in the spiritual. Do the math!

The second part was as long as this post, and all the other long posts we've exchanged. Some flow over to a double post, and, occasionally, you ignore the second post. Why?

If two posts are in the same vein, why not knock em off in one effort?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A creature mentioned in Job, Chinese history, and the story of saint George and the dragon.

I must admit, the dragon has a remarkably universal appearance in human mythology. Various theories have been produced to explain this, and the common theme is that the dragon is the archetypal predator, an amalgamation of the three predators most dangerous in humanity's infancy: the raptor (eagles, hawks), the snake (pythons, lizards), and the large cat (esp. leopards). Since survival instincts are, quite obviously, one of the fastest evolved, this primordial fear amalgamated into a general fear of large,winged, quadripedal, serpents.
This has also been extended to explain the apparent universality of other hybrid creatures, such as the cyclops (most notably the pigmy elephant skulls), the pheonix, and the griffin.

Another popular theory is that the legends were independantly formed by early human's attempts to explain the collosal bones of beached whales, Nile crocodiles growing to up to 20', etc.

No, it just doesn't apply to the present state, it did in early history at least to some extent.

So you know argue that belief morphed reality in your 'pre-split' universe?

And the glaring fact that you have not got tests for the spiritual, to test and prove or disprove it, is not ad anything, it is just fact.[/qoute]
First, I never claimed that there were objective experiments to test the validity of subjective claims. Indeed, I have been saying all along that there can be no such experiments.
Second, it is an ad hominem when you write 'pitifully inadequate'. It is unneccesary, and offensive.

You can't go over to some country where a miracle happened last week, and verify it with your truly pitifully inadaquate tests of PO science.

Ah, so know it's 'truely pitifully inadequate'. In any case, the point is that, because there is no way to objectively verify a subjective claim (especially one involving alleged miracles), we cannot ratoinally accept that they happened.

Neither does it make a case!

A case is simply a claim, any claim. While evidence helps to no end, it is not strictly necessary.

Only mere PO science evidence, like yours, but there is evidences and close encounters of another kind.

There is no other evidence but the scientific. Perhaps you mean that there is no objective evidence?

It ir very relevant as evidence.

You misunderstand: it is not evidence. There is no 'known spiritual'.

We have to look at all evidences, scientific, and otherwise if there is none of those.

On the contrary, we can only look to objective evidence. Subjective evidence is unverifiable, and quite easy to fabricate.

They are temporary, Johnny come lately, here today, gone tommorow laws.

There is no evidence that the physical laws are anything but permanent. Care to present some?

And, as such a creation trait, and not relevant to a creation evolution debate.

On the contrary, since you cannot deny that Evolution occurs (as scientifically defined, in case you try to use your own definition), you must turn to refuting Deep Time and Common Ancestry to support your claims.

That isn't the kind of evolution I am concerned about.

What other sort is there?

It is the anti God so called knowledge,

Evolution, and the theory thereof, only become remotely theological when they contradict theological beliefs. There are not inherently theological, and so cannot be rightly called 'anti-god'.

that tries to usurp the creation of God,

Scientists only want to uncover the truth. If your god is false, then so be it.

and give the credit to something else

Credit is given where credit is due. There is no evidence that your god created anything, so why credit him with it?

while also opposing the timeframes of the bible as simply, and historically, and still widely believed.

There is nothing wrong with opposing the Bible. It is only a book, after all.

I have no fears at all, the bounds are simply things you cannot cross. Creation is the bounds, and the created kinds, when we talk evolution.

There are no 'bounds', as you describe them here. There are opposing views, and you are a fool if you think science will not progress in areas that might contradict an opposing view. Why on Earth should we stay away from your precious Creation?

How would you know???

Because to invoke a deity is to invoke huge unknowns: the origin of the deity, the composition of the deity, what the deity actually is, etc. In any case, to invoke a deity in a classic 'goddidit' explanation is non-progressive, unneccesary, and contradictory to the evidence

No, just the simple fact He did it all in a week.

Fact? I think not. Besides, surely an omnipotent deity could create everything within a single moment of time?

Research it, it is pretty basic science.

Hardly. That the laws of physics 'break down' would reck untol havock on the universe, akin to a naked singularity.

You said something I think about being a 'scientist'??

Indeed. How is this pertinent?

Strange, I also thought you said something about being 18 years old??

Even more irrelevant. At least I am willing to give my age, mon ami.

Are you new to this scientist business??

No.

Or did I misunderstand something you said?

You misunderstand everything I say. So why should this be different.

The laws break down just before the point it reaches a singularity.

They do not break down, they are just not understood. For example: there are laws that affect the quantum scales, and laws that affect the macroscopic scales. Quantum mechanics does affect the macroscopic scales, but it is neglible, just as classical mechanics does affect the quantum scale, but it is also neglible.
Likewise, the laws that govern the circumstances of a singularity do affect the other circumstances, but they are neglible (i.e., the variables approach zero and infinity).

An example: Quantum mechanics says that an object will always have some kinetic energy, whereas classical mechanics says that an object can be at rest. If you take a marble, it does have kinetic energy when it appears to be at rest, but it's movement is of the order 10^-14 m/s!

Then you don't believe in the big bang.

The Big Bang is a consequence of the physical laws. I personally subscribe to String Theory, and it's explanation of the Big Bang.

Opinion.

No, logic. Your god is inconsequential to this discussion. What matters is the improbability of an agent of change.

I have the greatest magic in the universe. What did Moses know, when his staff (Aaron's) ate the other snakes?? See, we don't need to know any magic, we know the Great Magician.

You have a god. Deities are not magicians.

Are you kidding? You mean if I scrape my knee, God shoull kill me??

Yes, if your god is truely omnibenevolent, and truely omnipotent, and truely omniscient. Indeed, if a being existed with those qualities, then it would have no choice but to annihilate the universe.

Ridiculous.

Not really. It is a logical consequence of giving your deity such absolute constrictions.

I thought I had just explained thing to your understanding. What is it you still misunderstand, then??

You made one statement: No ther prophesies are 100 % right.
Then you made this one: the prohesies of any other book are not all right. They may be 70% accurate, or 62 % accurate, etc. Not 100%.
And this one: No [Qu'ran etc] prophesies are 100 % right.

Which one do you know stand by?

Your admission you have no science and proof for the claimed same past is a de facto admission you have no science case, like it or not.

You are putting words into my mouth. I have quite clearly stated that:
1) Both our claims have no objective evidence.
2) Lack of evidence does not make a claim unscientific.
3) Both our claims have no possible proof or disproof.
4) Lack of proof does not consititue disproof, and vice versa.
5) Lack of proof does not make a claim unscientific, and lack of disproof does not make a claim scientific.

So, a feature of the physical universe, means that it is PO opinion.

No. Probability is a statistical feature of the universe, physical or otherwise. Stop putting words into my mouth, or I will do it to you.

It shows that people were so sure it was right, they gave up their lives for it.

But this does not mean it was right. The same could be said of the Qu'ran.

It is a record sealed in the blood of the martyrs,

Qu'ran again.

written in the hearts and lives of untold millions still,

Romantic drivil.

as well as tried and proven to work by billions over time.

This can be said about religion the world over. And no, subjective evidence does not constitute empirical proof.

I id. The bible, and known spiritual we can not ignore, and the agreement with the evidence we do have.

1) The Bible says nothing about a 'split', or a change in the physical laws.
2) There is no known spiritual.
3) There is no evidence of a 'split', or a change in the physical laws.

Try again.

The analogy was that the PO universe was the fishbowl. Let's not pretend you didn't understand.

What makes you think I did not understand? You have continually been using 'box' and 'fishbowl' analogies, without ever explaining why you assume a 'box' or 'fishbowl' to exist. Thus, I extended your metaphor to question why the fish is in a bowl, and not an ocean.

That it was the opinion of the devoid, that nothing but a void is better than God.

You misunderstand. The void is preferable to your god. There are some deities with whom I would happily coexist with. Your god, however, is quite barbaric.

Nonsense.

Really? Care to explain why? How do you know that your sensory input is not being manipulated?

Let us know if you ever meet someone that says physical laws we have changed, then, will you?

Since it is the long and short of your claim, then I'm going give you as an answer.

Common sense isn't so common any more.

I repeat: who says common sense is any less? You have not answered my question.

And it is also logical that it was a different past.

Why?

CONTINUED

 

[Wiccan_Child]

CONTINUATION

Especially since there is no evidence for a same past.

But there is no evidence of a different past, either.

Higher logic,

There is no higher logic, be it Biblical or otherwise.

and certainty,

There is nothing certain about the Bible. It is plagued with doubt, copying errors, interpritations, etc.

all that science has,

The Bible contradicts science!

and infinitely more!

How specific.

A damn sight more unproven,

Yes, that is what I said.

ungodly,

I do not omit the existance of deity, I just reject that any deity changed the physical laws.

and ridiculous is all it is.

Why is it ridiculous?

That's what you think.

No, that is what I know by definition of 'philsophy', 'physics', and 'reality'.

The only part of reality physics covers is the reality in the box. As for it's philosphy, science is natural philosophy only.

Utter nonsense. Try sticking to conventional definitions, would you?

I can take or leave philosophy, don't have much use for it.

This entire debate is a philosophical discussion! We are debating fundamental assumptions, the nature of the universe and reality, the probability of a de re diety, the limits (or lack thereof) of logic and reason!

And it can't begin to do that, when it omits the real reason things are the way they are.

On the contrary, nothing is omitted. There is simply no objective reason to conclude the Christian god. If such reason is eventually found (which I find highly unlikely), then the Christian god will be concluded. Untill then, do not presume to tell the scientific consensus what it must fall on.

We, the citizens of heaven coming, love to restrict those that do that to the mists of memory.

Then you are more of a fool than I thought (and I must admit, I consider you a great fool).

The method involves only the natural as well. What else do you think you can observe and test, spooks?

If 'spooks' interefere with the physical universe, then they can be observed.

Depends on what you like to call logic on the point you might try to make.

No. Logic does not change. There are logical principles that are pertinant to some debates, and others which are not, but logic is constant.

No, it was arranged.

Nonsense. It is predicted by F=(GMm)/(r^2).

No because when you assume the sun will burn out it is a prediction you think the state will be the same in the future. Busted.

I'm sorry? We were talking about you using the word 'assumption' in the context of, 'If I bang a key, I assume it will make a letter appear onscreen'. You are correct that 'The Sun will burn out' is a prediction based on the assumption that the physical laws are constant. However, noone predicts that the Sun will burn out, since the Sun is not burning.

Rules are made to be broken.

If this is your belief, then you should be out creating anarchy.

Especially PO rules.

Care to give any other rules?

You assume how things are meant to be, based on assumptions.

No. Defintions are, by definition, well defined. I assume nothing about them.

No wonder you sometimes wrestle with reality.

I do not. I merely accept that all may not be as it seems.

Doensn't evolution of simple organisms to more complex ones ring a bell?

No. This is Creationist propaganda to invoke 'conservation of information' laws, and to try to argue that 'if evolution is directed, who is doing the directing?'. There are organisms with more systems than others, but this does not imply extra complexity.

It isn't my theory, that would be yours.

Not really. Creationists posit this, not Evolutionists.

Life is complex.

All life is equally simple, equally complex.

Some say even a bacteria is complex.

That depends on your definition of 'complex'.

Your quaetion involved comparing some natural life with God. What do we know about God to make the comparison?

Don't you have your Saved™ Higher Logic™ Ungodless™ Christian™ Knowledge™ (note the sarcasm)?

You don't define true.

In this context, I use 'true' to mean the reality of the situation, independant of our subjective observations.

Have you ever made one?

'The sentence 'Why?' is a sentence fragment'. That is de dicto true statement.

No, it is good manners to be clear, especially when being as long in the tooth as you.

That is why I use the quotation boxes. Your questions are always there for the casual reader to read. My browser has tabs set up like this, so I can reference quite easily:

Yes. Except, for the far cosmos. There, they dream up stuff, and assign reasons for all we see, based on PO assumptions.

What is it we assume about the far cosmos? Why should we assume that the far cosmos operates with different physical laws?

No, big difference. To change a physical law, would wreck the universe, or world, or really be noticable at least. But since science bases all on what we now have, they notice not what we did have, so know not what to look for, even if they could find it! And where's that!?

I'm sorry, where did you explain the difference?

If there was no end, why the period at the end?

This is not the 'end' I was referring to and you know it. You said 'only where science ends'. I am trying to show you that there is no reason to assume that science must 'end' somewhere.

None, why lie?

How is it a lie? It is a definition.

I know, there is only the box, prove us wrong.

I cannot. That is why I do not catagorically state that you are wrong. However, I do catagorically state that you assume the improbable, and that is illogical.

Increasingly shrill, much???

I find it ironic that someone who calls me shrill uses several quotation marks.

I asked, why not? And you go ape? For someone that touts ad hominem as the big bad wicked witch of the west, you practice it a lot. I have to direst at you, the first 4 words of your post here.

You said that you assume what you do because you cannot see a reason not to. So, under that rather idiotic mentality, you could justify doing anything.

I have thousands of my own reasons,

Then give one. You claim you have thousands of reasons for why the Bible is backed, so give at least one. Give what non-Christians have been asking for for centuries.

ther are billions who believe in the spiritual.

Indeed there are. There are also billions who accept that Evolution occurs, and believe in the Theory of Evolution. Your point?

Do the math!

There is much mathematics I can 'do'. Please be specific.

If two posts are in the same vein, why not knock em off in one effort?

Irrelevant. The two parts of the post were quite different, each answering one half of the points you made in your post (or, as it may happen, two posts).

 

[dad]

I must admit, the dragon has a remarkably universal appearance in human mythology.

Another popular theory is that the legends were independantly formed by early human's attempts to explain the collosal bones of beached whales, Nile crocodiles growing to up to 20', etc.

Those that seek natural only explanations, excercise their imaginations according to their beliefs, yes. They even try it on bible miracles.

So you know argue that belief morphed reality in your 'pre-split' universe?

Belief is connected to reality. 'According to their faith be it done unto them'.

First, I never claimed that there were objective experiments to test the validity of subjective claims. Indeed, I have been saying all along that there can be no such experiments.
Second, it is an ad hominem when you write 'pitifully inadequate'. It is unneccesary, and offensive.

It is the inabilty of science that is woefully inadequate to test anything spiritual, not just you.

Ah, so know it's 'truely pitifully inadequate'. In any case, the point is that, because there is no way to objectively verify a subjective claim (especially one involving alleged miracles), we cannot ratoinally accept that they happened.

Such are the hazards and limitations of being in the box. You can neither confirm nor deny the very universally well known fact of the spiritual.

A case is simply a claim, any claim. While evidence helps to no end, it is not strictly necessary.

Right, and you have an empty claim for a same past.

There is no other evidence but the scientific. Perhaps you mean that there is no objective evidence?

No, science is a smallfry in the big evidence picture. What it can observe and test is almost insignificant. They do not dictate reality to the rest of us. They simply are adept at box knowledge, compared to the average Joe.

You misunderstand: it is not evidence. There is no 'known spiritual'.

No, I understand. There is certainly a well known spiritual. Deny it at your own peril.

On the contrary, we can only look to objective evidence. Subjective evidence is unverifiable, and quite easy to fabricate.

Piltdownishly simple, but that does not mean the majority of people are psycopathic liars. Some is junk, yes, but the ocean we are talking about has a lot of real water.

There is no evidence that the physical laws are anything but permanent. Care to present some?

We covered all that, science can't say one way or the other. Moot point.

On the contrary, since you cannot deny that Evolution occurs (as scientifically defined, in case you try to use your own definition), you must turn to refuting Deep Time and Common Ancestry to support your claims.

Yes, I do realize there was no old ages, and no one can prove there was the same past needed to have them. Science is checked, and stalemated. So I look for new game, where our King can't lose.

Evolution, and the theory thereof, only become remotely theological when they contradict theological beliefs. There are not inherently theological, and so cannot be rightly called 'anti-god'.

We disagree.

Scientists only want to uncover the truth. If your god is false, then so be it.

The truth as dictated by the natural only, God, the supernatural isn't invited methodology you call science!

Credit is given where credit is due. There is no evidence that your god created anything, so why credit him with it?

Because the sum total of evidences are only partially in the box, by it's very nature. The boxologists do not dictate whether God exists! He dictates whether they exist!

There is nothing wrong with opposing the Bible. It is only a book, after all.

Pagan morality has it's little place. Dictating to a believing majority is not that place.

There are no 'bounds', as you describe them here. There are opposing views, and you are a fool if you think science will not progress in areas that might contradict an opposing view. Why on Earth should we stay away from your precious Creation?

You live in creation, you couldn't get away from it, let alone stay away! Humble down.

Because to invoke a deity is to invoke huge unknowns: the origin of the deity, the composition of the deity, what the deity actually is, etc. In any case, to invoke a deity in a classic 'goddidit' explanation is non-progressive, unneccesary, and contradictory to the evidence

In other words it doesn't fit in your box, too bad, He is well known out of your little box.

Fact? I think not. Besides, surely an omnipotent deity could create everything within a single moment of time?

What He could do, and did do, are different, yes He can do anything. But I can do a lot as well. I could run up to a bridge, and jump off, and maybe throw a few people off as well, but would I? No. So why dream up all the things you think He could have done, then blame Him for not doing it???? Ilogical.

Hardly. That the laws of physics 'break down' would reck untol havock on the universe, akin to a naked singularity.

Better brush up on the 'I am a scientist' business there. Maybe ask Chalnoth, ot Lucriteus, or some cosmo whiz, and get a grip there.

They do not break down, they are just not understood. For example: there are laws that affect the quantum scales, and laws that affect the macroscopic scales. Quantum mechanics does affect the macroscopic scales, but it is neglible, just as classical mechanics does affect the quantum scale, but it is also neglible.
Likewise, the laws that govern the circumstances of a singularity do affect the other circumstances, but they are neglible (i.e., the variables approach zero and infinity).

Well, I guess we could say, your understanding of the present laws break down in the fantasy same past singularity!

The Big Bang is a consequence of the physical laws. I personally subscribe to String Theory, and it's explanation of the Big Bang.

But there are PO strings attached to that as well. But, hey, pick your beliefs!

You have a god. Deities are not magicians.

He can be called the Great Scientist, the Great I Am, the Great Teacher, ...etc etc. If we call a man that does tricks a magician, we can call the One that created the world one.

Yes, if your god is truely omnibenevolent, and truely omnipotent, and truely omniscient. Indeed, if a being existed with those qualities, then it would have no choice but to annihilate the universe.

Great. So, your idea of greatness is utter destruction of everything. The bible call the devil 'the destroyer'. God is known more for creating, loving, life, etc.

You made one statement: No ther prophesies are 100 % right.
Then you made this one: the prohesies of any other book are not all right. They may be 70% accurate, or 62 % accurate, etc. Not 100%.
And this one: No [Qu'ran etc] prophesies are 100 % right.

Which one do you know stand by?

I said the bible is 100% accurate in the prohesies. Other books are not. Is that really complicated???

You are putting words into my mouth. I have quite clearly stated that:
1) Both our claims have no objective evidence.
2) Lack of evidence does not make a claim unscientific.
3) Both our claims have no possible proof or disproof.
4) Lack of proof does not consititue disproof, and vice versa.
5) Lack of proof does not make a claim unscientific, and lack of disproof does not make a claim scientific.

Your opinion of our extra science evidences, aside, we see here you admit you have no case at all! 'Both our claims have no objective evidence' - 'Both our claims have no possible proof or disproof'.
Lurkers take note.

No. Probability is a statistical feature of the universe, physical or otherwise. Stop putting words into my mouth, or I will do it to you.

No. Your idea of probable is based on this universe, you only assume it applies in the coming one.

1) The Bible says nothing about a 'split', or a change in the physical laws.

It talks of the earth being divided. It clearly speaks of a past and future very different. A change in this universe is mentioned, a new heavens are coming.

2) There is no known spiritual.

I know about it. Billions also do. Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee?

What makes you think I did not understand? You have continually been using 'box' and 'fishbowl' analogies, without ever explaining why you assume a 'box' or 'fishbowl' to exist. Thus, I extended your metaphor to question why the fish is in a bowl, and not an ocean.

Oh. Well, as far as science is concerned, only the natural matters. It will remain in the box!

You misunderstand. The void is preferable to your god. There are some deities with whom I would happily coexist with. Your god, however, is quite barbaric.

Opinion.

Really? Care to explain why? How do you know that your sensory input is not being manipulated?

This questioning reality is almost a predictable behaviour with you. Fine.

I repeat: who says common sense is any less? You have not answered my question.

I do. Most people I ever met do. But, it is opinion either way.

 

[dad]

There is no higher logic, be it Biblical or otherwise.

Opinion.

There is nothing certain about the Bible. It is plagued with doubt, copying errors, interpritations, etc.

Common misconception.

The Bible contradicts science!

I would hope so.

I do not omit the existance of deity, I just reject that any deity changed the physical laws.

Me too. I thought I covered that several tiimes?

No, that is what I know by definition of 'philsophy', 'physics', and 'reality'.

Selective defining.

This entire debate is a philosophical discussion! We are debating fundamental assumptions, the nature of the universe and reality, the probability of a de re diety, the limits (or lack thereof) of logic and reason!

Such is the problem when you admit you have no science proof, or evidence, as you have done.

On the contrary, nothing is omitted. There is simply no objective reason to conclude the Christian god. If such reason is eventually found (which I find highly unlikely), then the Christian god will be concluded. Untill then, do not presume to tell the scientific consensus what it must fall on.

Conclude what you want, who cares what boxology concludes, long as it is in the box???

Then you are more of a fool than I thought (and I must admit, I consider you a great fool).

OK, a good note to conclude on. We have your admission you basically have no science case. That's all I need from you. Thanks.
As for helping you with your doubts, and trying to answer things, it's game over.
If you ever grow some actual science do let us know, for the same past you claim.
Meanwhile, back on topic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Those that seek natural only explanations, excercise their imaginations according to their beliefs, yes.

If an event can be explained using the most probable means, then why adpot the improbable?

They even try it on bible miracles.

Why is this noteworthy?

Belief is connected to reality. 'According to their faith be it done unto them'.

OK, so you argue that the 'known spiritual' exists because people believe in it (as opposed to people believing in the 'known spiritual' because it exists)? This line of thinking is the only one I can think that you are taking in describing the 'known spiritual' as a result of mass belief.

It is the inabilty of science that is woefully inadequate to test anything spiritual, not just you.

You misunderstand. I was pointing out why ad hominems are neither useful nor helpful. It is sufficient to say that 'A is inadequate', but to add the unneccessary and derogitory qualifier 'woeful'/'pitiful' is what turns a statement into an ad hominem.

Such are the hazards and limitations of being in the box. You can neither confirm nor deny the very universally well known fact of the spiritual.

You contradict yourself. You accept that the subjective cannot be proven, yet you then state that 'the very universally well known fact of the spiritual'. This is a statment that implies proof.

Right, and you have an empty claim for a same past.

We are already discussing this topic in multiple points. Do not change the topic of this point (in case you suffer from another bought of selective amnesia, the topic is defining a 'case').

No, science is a smallfry in the big evidence picture.

Non sequitur. Science is a methodology that allows us to make rational and logical explanations of why the facts are as they are. Evidence is an fact that is pertinent to the discussion. Facts are known truths about reality (the maximum relative velocity of an object is exactly 299,792,458 m/s, for example)
The other non sequitur is that it does follow from my post: 'Perhaps you mean that there is no objective evidence?'

What it can observe and test is almost insignificant.

I'm sorry? What we can observe defined as all the things that can interefere with us in whatever way. This is hardly insignificant.

No, I understand.

If you understood me, then you would adopt all my positions. If I understood you, then I would adopt all of your positions. Since you reject one of my positions, you do not understand me.

There is certainly a well known spiritual.

This directly contradicts what I just said, and you offer no explanation why. Spirituality is well-believed, but it is by no means known.

Deny it at your own peril.

Nonsense. Are you threatening me?

Piltdownishly simple, but that does not mean the majority of people are psycopathic liars. Some is junk, yes, but the ocean we are talking about has a lot of real water.

I did not call people liars. There are more probable explanations for why all human cultures involve some form of spirituality.

We covered all that, science can't say one way or the other. Moot point.

On the contrary, noone can rightly say anything about the state of the physical laws, unless they assume their own set of laws to be constant. Mutable physical laws exclude empiricism and objectivism.

Yes, I do realize there was no old ages, and no one can prove there was the same past needed to have them.

You have disproof of Deep Time? Please, present it.

Science is checked, and stalemated. So I look for new game, where our King can't lose.

Hah! You sense defeat, so you turn tail and run to a more 'easier' debate! Are you so afraid of being disproven that you will run?

We disagree.

Indeed. However, our debate would grow rather stagnant if we simply stated that 'we disagree'. It is obvious that we disagree, otherwise we would not be debating! So tell me, why do you disagree with me when I say:
Evolution, and the theory thereof, only become remotely theological when they contradict theological beliefs. There are not inherently theological, and so cannot be rightly called 'anti-god'.

The truth as dictated by the natural only, God, the supernatural isn't invited methodology you call science!

The truth is dictated by nothing. It simply is. And no, your god must also bow to logic. He cannot make A¹A, he cannot make a regular euclidian triangle with angles not equal to 60°, he cannot make a married bachelor, etc.

Because the sum total of evidences are only partially in the box, by it's very nature.

How so? By your own definition of 'in box', all evidence is exactly 'in box'.

The boxologists do not dictate whether God exists!

No. Those who define a god dictates whether it can exist (but not if it exists).

He dictates whether they exist!

Assuming, of course, your god exists.

Pagan morality has it's little place.

I object to, and am offensed by, your implication that Paganism is inferior.

Dictating to a believing majority is not that place.

You actually believe that the minority should bend to the whim of the majority?

You live in creation,

Indeed, but I do not see anything to imply that it was divinely created.

Humble down.

No. I choose to stand, to look up, to open my eyes, and to wonder.

In other words it doesn't fit in your box, too bad, He is well known out of your little box.

You are once again putting words into my mouth. Unless you can explain away the unknowns involved with the divine, then invoking a deity will always be more irrational than any other explanation.

What He could do, and did do, are different, yes He can do anything.

I do not dispute this. But I question why he did what he was alleged to do. Why 6 days? And why rest on the 7th? These are hardly qualities of omnipotence.

But I can do a lot as well. I could run up to a bridge, and jump off, and maybe throw a few people off as well, but would I? No.

You do not do it because you fear the consequences. For an omnipotent god, what is there to fear? Why choose 6 days over 0? Omniscience and omnipotence, as logical absolutes, must beget logical actions.

So why dream up all the things you think He could have done, then blame Him for not doing it????

I do not blame your god for allegedly creating the universe in 6 days. I merely question why. It is quite illogical.

Maybe ask Chalnoth, ot Lucriteus, or some cosmo whiz, and get a grip there.

You might want to stop irrelevantely giving me referring me to posters, and explain yourself in your own words.

Well, I guess we could say, your understanding of the present laws break down in the fantasy same past singularity!

You could say that, but the statement would not make sense. Ever heard of context?

But there are PO strings attached to that as well.

No. String theory is a mathematical theory of the nature of reality, not an evidenced one.

But, hey, pick your beliefs!

Can't I just tap into your oh-so powerful not-quite-Christan™ not-quite-Known™ not-quite-Knowledge™?

He can be called the Great Scientist, the Great I Am, the Great Teacher, ...etc etc. If we call a man that does tricks a magician, we can call the One that created the world one.

A magician is a human who can, and has, done magick. Divine intervention is quite different from magick. For instance, the latter does not need to expend effort collecting and direct energy, whilst the former must.

Great. So, your idea of greatness is utter destruction of everything.

I'm sorry, where did I say this? I said that an entity with those specific three properties cannot allow suffering to exist. There can reality, just no suffering.

The bible call the devil 'the destroyer'. God is known more for creating, loving, life, etc.

Such as ruthlessly defending a group of people he happened to choose to be 'his' people. Such as advocating the 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' morality. Such as drowning his creation because they did not behave as he wanted (dispite knowingly endowing them with free will). Such as condemning parties in adultery and homosexual sex to death. Such as...
Yes, your god is known for his love. Would this be the same 'known' as in the 'known spiritual'?

Your opinion of our extra science evidences, aside, we see here you admit you have no case at all! 'Both our claims have no objective evidence' - 'Both our claims have no possible proof or disproof'.

I admit nothing of the sort. I admit the limitations of our respective claims, by their very natures, but I never said that I do not have a claim.

Lurkers take note.

Indeed.

No. Your idea of probable is based on this universe, you only assume it applies in the coming one.

You are, once again, putting words into my mouth. I do not believe that there is a 'coming universe', nor a 'previous universe'. There is only this universe. Care to explain to me another model of probability?

It talks of the earth being divided. It clearly speaks of a past and future very different. A change in this universe is mentioned, a new heavens are coming.

Care to give the relavant verses? To go from 'the Earth is divided' to 'the physical laws are changed', is quite a leap. Is it not more likely to refer to plate tectonics, or territorial division, or differentiation of lingustic, or ideological/political/religious differences?

I know about it.

You believe it. You have subjectively experianced it (I assume). But you do not know it.

Billions also do.

Only in the same way as you, myself included.

Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee?

How odd, I had just brewed you a cup.

Oh. Well, as far as science is concerned, only the natural matters. It will remain in the box!

What? Did you read anything that I've written for the past 20 pages?
Why do you consider there to be limits at all? A fish in murky water would not assume there to be a limiting glass bowl just because it cannot see the bowl; it is more likely to be in the ocean.

Opinion.

I was explaining my beliefs. So yes, it is very much an opinion. Would you like a gold star?

This questioning reality is almost a predictable behaviour with you.

It is not a behaviour, it is a question that you continually avoid. Why?

Common misconception.

Hardly. For example, prove that Jesus existed, or else there will be doubt that Jesus existed.

I would hope so.

You just wrote:
'[The Bible has] all that science has'.
Do you reject this claim?

Me too. I thought I covered that several tiimes?

I am still trying to pin down your position, even after almost 30 pages of posts. You say that your god created a universe with a set of physical laws. Then, this 'split' happened, and this split the universe into two seperate universes: the physical, and the spiritual, each with their own set of physical laws (which are different to the original laws). Correct?
If so, then you claim that a deity (i.e., your god) changed the physical laws (from thier initial state, to their current state).

Selective defining.

Hardly. The relevant consensus determines the definition, and the consensus falls on my definitions (or, more preciesly, my definitions coincide with the relevant consensuses definitions). Of course, if you would like to offer a more relevant definition, then be my guest.

Such is the problem when you admit you have no science proof, or evidence, as you have done.

I admit it because it would be fraudulent of me to not admit it. However, we are debating theoretically. Proof is only mathematical, and evidence is non-existant.

Conclude what you want, who cares what boxology concludes, long as it is in the box???

I suggest you read that again, and make the appropriate correction.

We have your admission you basically have no science case.

I admit nothing of the sort. But then, that's never stopped you before.

That's all I need from you.

You posted in a public forum. I responded. We need nothing from each other, besides a legible reponse.

Thanks.

Are you throwing in the towel? Shame.

As for helping you with your doubts,

I accept probabilities, but I do not have doubts. I try explain that Biblical contradictions exist, and copy-and-paste some ad hoc nonsense without ever really solving the contraditions! I dispear at you.

and trying to answer things,

You have answered nothing. You use a priori assumptions to leap to ad hoc conclusions, and thereby reject all of objectivism, empiricism, logic, and science.

it's game over.

Indeed. You have failed to do what you set out to do: you cannot explain why we should accept your absurd claim of a one-time 'split' in the physical laws and in the universe, why the Bible is at all relevant, why deduction and assumption are invalid scientific tools, etc.

If you ever grow some actual science do let us know, for the same past you claim.
And if you ever learn what science is, perhaps you will learn why your claims are absurd. Maybe you'll even learn to remember a few hours back, or how to use punctuation, spelling, syntax, or grammar.

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Indeed. Back to the arena of scientific debate. Return to the crèche, mon ami.

 

[dad]

..

Sounds like you missed this.

OK, a good note to conclude on. We have your admission you basically have no science case (same past). That's all I need from you. Thanks.
As for helping you with your doubts, and trying to answer things, it's game over.
I don't need to be called a fool, thank you very much.
If you ever grow some actual science do let us know, for the same past you claim.
Meanwhile, back on topic.
It's witching hour.