Space was Warm.

[dad]

1) Unfactual? Perhaps you mean false? Or do you like your stream of 'un-s'?
2) Unsupported? Perhaps. But then, so is your claim.
3) Unscientific? I think not. My claim does not violate Occam's Razor, and is accepted by the scientific community.
4) Unsound? How does my logic fail?
5) I understood you perfectly. I was merely pointing out that you misused the term fact (a fact is something empirically known, be if by observation or definition).

A science claim ought to be more than unsupported. The fact is you can't suppot it. You admitted it. Nothing all that logical about that.

You do know that the Disney movie was based on Anderson's story?

No. Alright, what was the point of the tail again?

You: We will not even need the light of the sun. In the past, light was here...before any sun was created.
Unless, of course, there was some other source of light?

There was. The sun wasn't here, there had to be.

You might want to also remember that any argument or claim you make will also be unsubstantiateable; that is, without empiricism, there is no point in these debates. Indeed, all human endevour becomes futile.

No point in science claiming it knows the past and future states, no. Life is a lot more than those assumptions, though.

Lack of evidence does not imply that something is unscientific.

Anyone can make unevidenced claims.

Besides, if something can interfere with the PO universe, then it is part of the PO universe. That is the definition of PO.

No, they can visit here. They are not limited by it.

Irrelevant to the validity of Occam's Razor.

You really are hung up on the monk's ideas.

The former is a possible consequence of Occam's Razor, the latter just false propoganda.

God is a concequence of a monk? Don't think so.

For the final time, the monk himself is irrelevant. It is the scientific principle of Occam's Razor that is important. Do not forget that Occam is not the only person to posit that the simpler is the more likely of two otherwise identicle explanations.

Simple is not always good. Especially if it simply omits the spiritual, and God, and the need for any evidence whatsoever.

The formulae were examples of universal laws.

And the PO laws were important, because....??

That is not what I meant. Any culture which codifies the laws of nature, will also, by virtue of human society, have a spirituality.

A supernatural is not the natural. Most men, regardless of culture believe in some spiritual.

I freely reject the Bible, you know this. What is your point?
Also, I did not say that my claim is unscientific. I believe what I believe because of logical induction.

It isn't that logical to assume a same past with no evidence, or science.

No, you do not. If your claim is true, then empiricism is false, as we know nothing.

Science knows nothing of anything else but this present natural universe. They have no empiricism to carry that into the future or past.

What I said was clear. Your inability to comprehend the concepts involved does not change this. As it happens, Quantum Theory is a complex and counter-intuitive field. Few people who have not studied it in depth understand it.

Those that do, and do well can explain it.

The point I was originally making is that a particle's mass is a single quantum number that determines how much the particle is affected by spacetime depression. It is universal.

So what?

Why not? Surely this is preferable to suffering?

Really? So is prison preferable to being poor, and free? Is retardation better than a sound mind, and stubbing out toe? I think being a real person, with real choice, is better than being some mindless zombie.

Your point? If your god wanted to give humans free will, then he cannot rightly dictate arbitrary punishments for 'incorrect behaviour'. If an act truely is immoral, then it's immorality will be born out in it's consequences.

Of course He can. The whole thing is a lesson. How else can we, and untold billions of others in the spiritual learn the lessons of man's school of hard knocks?

Inconsistent. This would imply that your god must dictate a unique moral system for each moral agent, which contradicts the typical Christian claim of an absolute morality.

There is both. Some things are just wrong for all. Other things might be wrong for some, other things might depend on other things.

Essentially the same. 'I'm not demanding that you do this act, I'm just saying that, if you don't, then I will brutally and mercilessly torture you and your descendants for all eternity'. They are one and the same.

He nevr said He would do any such weird evil thing. He, as a good father warned them of the concequences of their actions.

I am not saying that the child won't suffer because of the sins of the father, but that the child shouldn't suffer because of the sins of the father.

Comes with the territory. Like a dog. I think there are not really any, or many bad dogs. There are bad owners. The animal reflects the spirit of the owner.

Rather an unfair advantage, is it not? Imagine two children arguing, and then the father helps his favourite child by shotgunning the less favoured child in the chest.

The heathen were not His people. For the sake of mankind, He chose a people, and brought them along. Part of the lessons were that we need to look to Him, even for defence.

And what of those who are sincere? How do you reconcile them?

Many were sincere, like Nicodemus. He had a great many followers from the Jews. Some secretly, cause they were scared to come out and admit it.

So you admit that your claim is unscientific? Now we're getting somewhere.

It is like you claim, science can't say one way or the other.

OK, let's break this rant down.
Overview: the claims we are talking about is the existance or nonexistance of a change, or creation, or whatever, of the physical laws at the time of the 'split'. You are aruging against the whole of the scientific consensus of the universe's history. But anyway.
1) Both of us have an entity for a cause of the universe. Mine is an autonomous creation, yours is a deity.
2) The primordial universe is not an entity, just an unknown.
3) Noone has ever claimed the primordial universe to be a 'little hot soup speck', and even if they did, this is not an entity.
4) There were no stages in the universe's history. There are arbitrary points where abstract phenomena begin to occur, but these are not actual stages. And neither are they entities.

So who writes all those rules, and gets to say what a flipping entity is?

5) The creation of the Earth is insignificant, as is it's particular molecular makeup. These are not entities.

Opinion. We are very important.

6) Abiogensis is an entity. It's counterpart in your arguments is 'god'.
7) Why do you assume that, if an event has a probability of 1 in 10 ^ n, we are assuming n entites?
8) Life has been wiped out, only to start again. Learn your facts.

Life was wiped out? No. There were times of a lot of death, but we are still here, thank you very much.

No! A is a general term for all entities. The element a of set A is anything that satisfies a=a, i.e., A={ a : a = a}, and this is the universal set W. Likewise, the set of elements a satisfying the condition a¹a is the null set, i.e., Æ={ x : x ¹ x }.

So, what exactly then does A here actually represent? Do you even know? Why would we be using A in the past, present, and future anyhow, unless they were the same? This renders A meaningless, except in the present.​

 

[dad]

...continuation


Another difference between our arguments: I freely admit that I may be wrong, and that you may be right.

I admit the same thing! You may be wrong, and I may be right.

But bear in mind that the probability of being right is determined by simplicity, since our arguments are otherwise identicle.

The probability of being right depends on what the future and past are like. It's that simple.

So?

So, you want to insult most men on earth, you better be able to prove it.

Yes, I gathered that. But why did you make the effort to point this out? The demograph of belief in various entites among the US populace, while undoubtedly fascinating, seems to be irrelevant.

Worldwide, though there may be less Christians, the numbers are still right up there. Most people believe in some form of spiritual.

1) Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just about what life does after it has begun.

Not in common usage. It also involves non existant time! Old ageism.

2) Your arrogance continues to astound me. You think that the scientific world wants to replace your particular deity?

Their science has been attempted to be used this way, by targeting creation, and faith, for example, in schools.They have to teach that fable.

Objectivity trumps subjectivity, my friend.

Not when there is nothing to be objective or not about on the one hand, and billions of witnesses on the other!

Indeed. Usually there is a rational reason to disbelieve it. Personally, I find the morality horrific, the deity childish and sadistic, and the prejudism astounding.

There is no reason to disbelieve of concequence. There are lots of reasons to believe.

*sigh*
The scenario where Occam's Razor has the deciding vote is as follows:
Two claims are presented. Both are identicle

That rules out the creation debate then. The one side has a falsely so called science claim, dependant entirely on a same past, that it cannot support. The other side is the side of the Christian monk, who realize that the in box razor cannot be used against God.

explanations for the same facts, but neither are empirically substantiated. They differ in only one regard: one invokes more entities than the other.
Occam's Razor posits that the second claim, the one with fewer entites, is to be preferred.

This does not apply to the spiritual. It is only in box.

If you do not understand something, don't enbolden your text in an effort to emphasise your ad hominem attacks. Indeed, your ad hominem's only make you seem more and more ignorant.

It is what you do not understand that I bolded. If you do not understand the state of the past, admit it. That is the best scenario there.

Or perhaps this is like the Webster's definition of animal:
'Anything satsifying the biological features of the kingdom Animalia. Except humans.'

Not bad. But I don't consider birds and fish animals either. Let alone creepy crawlers.

My point is that, given a rate and current value, time can be calculated:
Dt=Dx/(dx/dt)

And, so?

Such as? It is not my responsibility to be aware of what you don't know, nor explain everything to you in excrutiating detail.

It's called making a point. Pretend someone may not understand, and the world is reading.

Indeed. It is when one takes the Bible to be literally true without any rationale, that one enters a fantasy.

Only in your mind.

I believe it was in English. Perhaps you would prefer something a little less taxing on your US education?
'You claim that only nihilo can be created ex nihilo. This is false.'
Better?

No. Who is creating what from what nothing, and why?

You have a relatively stable climate, and organisms will evolve into that niche. When the climate suddenly changes, so must the organisms evolve to suit that niche, or perish. It is a concept, a consequence of Evolution.

But I said that things evolved to cope with the cold, only difference is time. The different past allowed that to happen very very fast.

Ah, now I understand your picture. I thought it was a reference to Poe's Law, not your PO-only rubbish.

No, it means that Einsteins' formula, and theories are strictly limited to this PO. They are, if you will, relative only to the box.

How does this resolve the contradiction? You still have two seperate dates for the burning of the temple.
Unless, of course, you admit that the verses are not literal?

8-18. on the seventh day of the month . . . came Nebuzar-adan--(compare Jer 52:12). In attempting to reconcile these two passages, it must be supposed either that, though he had set out on the seventh, he did not arrive in Jerusalem till the tenth, or that he did not put his orders in execution till that day. His office as captain of the guard (Ge 37:36; 39:1) called him to execute the awards of justice on criminals; and hence, although not engaged in the siege of Jerusalem (Jer 39:13), Nebuzar-adan was despatched to rase the city, to plunder the temple, to lay both in ruins, demolish the fortifications, and transport the inhabitants to Babylon.
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=2ki&chapter=25&verse=8#2Ki25_8

So, that's how they explain it. I would wonder if there could be a third option there. Not that I know more than a commentary, but, ...
If I was the guy, and got there on the seventh, and set fire to the huge place that evening, say, 9:45 PM, and it took a while to fully burn to the ground, say, till the morning of the tenth. We have, say, about 51 hours in question. Could it have taken that long to burn that huge place?

"The building was most likely 60 cubits (27 m) long, 20 cubits (9 m) wide, and 25 (in the Greek text) or 30 (in the Hebrew) cubits (14 m) high. According to another account, however, the temple was about 120 cubits high. This would have placed the structure at about 20 stories."

So, it was a huge complex. Lots of stone work. And, let's not forget the all important job they had of plundering! That could take time.
"The chambers which surrounded the Holy Place in Solomon's Temple are said in 1 Chr. 28:12 to have been storehouses for the sacred treasure"
So, now we need time to ransack the treasure, great great treasure, I might add, before burning it. So maybe they cleaned out a place, of treasure, then burned it. Sure seems like one could spend 53 hours getting all that done!
"The temple walls were composed of hewn stone made ready at the quarry. The roof was of cedar and the walls were paneled with it. The cedar was carved with figures (cherubim, palm trees, and flowers), and was overlaid with gold fitted to the carving. The floors were of fir or cypress wood, overlaid with gold. The communication between he Holy Place and Holy of Holies was by a doorway with two doors of olivewood carved like the walls and overlaid with gold. "
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/t/14
I mean the walls were overlain with real gold!!!!! Let's face it, getting out a city full, almost of treasure takes some time.

Do not advise someone to do something you would not do yourself.

Every time I look into some of these doubts, I see that they are pretty worthless.

So you admit that the Crevo debate exists because of a misunderstanding on the Creationist's part?

Well, few creationists at the moment agree with me on evolution. In fact, probably no YECS! See, you can't allow evolution that takes as much time as it now dows, and still come up with good bible dates. So they assumed, as I did at one time, that 'evolution' was simply false. With hyper evolution now possible in the different past, however, no problem like that exists! So, that is why I don't mind 'evolution' as a created trait in the past. How else could all the animals fit on the ark, if there wasn't a lot of adapting afterwards?
But, to take it past the created kinds, you cannot do. You just have no evidence at all. Drawing up a tree, with all animals arranged by similarity doesn't do it! You would need to show that there was no kinds, that it started at the pond. Evolution itself, that is, the past rapid adapting, and evolving, and changing, is now well in the YEC model that I have.

It is not the responsibility of the debaters to clue in their competitors. If you do not know what you are talking about, you do not belong in a scientific debating arena.

I know how old age evos would like to use the term, I also know the common usage. The term actually does not belong in a scientific arena. It is so mingled with old age same past, dream ancestor fables, that it is best used in the common usage.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A science claim ought to be more than unsupported. The fact is you can't suppot it. You admitted it. Nothing all that logical about that.

You are making baseless accusations. A hypothesis is scientific if is the simplest explanation of all the relavent facts. Usually, the very facts it is trying to explain, can be used as supporting evidence.

No. Alright, what was the point of the tail again?

My point was that, just because something is written down, does not mean it is true. I think.

There was. The sun wasn't here, there had to be.

What do you propose this light source was? Photon emmission is a form of radioactive decay, something AV1611VET vhemently protests did not exist before the Fall.

No point in science claiming it knows the past and future states, no. Life is a lot more than those assumptions, though.

You totally miss the point. Without empiricism, we cannot prove anything. All we will have is conjecture and hypothesis. There will be no evidence.

Anyone can make unevidenced claims.

Indeed. But my point was that there are other qualities that make a claim scientific. Logical consistence, for example, and simplicity.

No, they can visit here. They are not limited by it.

No, you misunderstand the term 'physical'. If something can interfere with something else, then they are part of the same local physical universe.

You really are hung up on the monk's ideas.

And you are obsessed with the feelings of a dead monk. Occam's Razor is not the sole property of Occam. Perhaps you are getting confused by the name?

God is a concequence of a monk? Don't think so.

I never mentioned a monk. I clearly said that the existance of your god is a possible consequence of Occam's Razor.

Simple is not always good.

Are we talking morally good?

Especially if it simply omits the spiritual, and God, and the need for any evidence whatsoever.

The consequences of a theory are irrelevant to the validity of said theory. So what if people find it offensive, or it conclusively rules out the divine? The truth will exist irrespective of whether a few apes accept it or not.

And the PO laws were important, because....??

Because they tell us how the interactions in the universe happen. If the physical laws did not exist, then all things would occur simultaneously.

A supernatural is not the natural. Most men, regardless of culture believe in some spiritual.

Non sequitur. Your first statement is a tautology, and an irrelevant one at that. How is it pertinent to our discussion?
Your latter statement is exactly what I said: spirituality exists in all cultures.

It isn't that logical to assume a same past with no evidence.

It is the most logical thing to do in the abscence of a better assumption. Care to make one?

Science knows nothing of anything else but this present natural universe. They have no empiricism to carry that into the future or past.

Non sequitur. Your are dodging the point. If the physical laws change, or if there was a time with no physical laws, then empiricism is false, and hence we can know nothing. Try to stay on track.

Those that do, and do well can explain it.

I did not say that I couldn't, or wouldn't, explain it. I merely mentioned that it is not my responsibility to explain it. If my intention here was to teach you about quantum theory, then I would explain to you quantum theory. Since this is not why I am here, it is not what I will do, unless you request otherwise.

So what?

So, your 'spiritual-physical construct mass' is erroneous.

Really? So is prison preferable to being poor, and free? Is retardation better than a sound mind, and stubbing out toe? I think being a real person, with real choice, is better than being some mindless zombie.

Yes, really. You would condemn the world to famine, plague, death, disease, pain, torture, war, and suffering, just so it can have the 'gift' of free will?
I'm sure your deity could have concieved of a way to create humanity with the illusion of chioce, with the illusion of free will. Is this not a compromise that your god willfully rejected?

Of course He can. The whole thing is a lesson.

I thought it was the consequence of free will? Do you really subscribe to both the Iranaen and Aquinian theodicies?

How else can we, and untold billions of others in the spiritual learn the lessons of man's school of hard knocks?

By being instantly created with such knowledge.

There is both. Some things are just wrong for all. Other things might be wrong for some, other things might depend on other things.

Then morality is not absolute! The definition of an absolute morality is one which does not change per person or per situation.

He nevr said He would do any such weird evil thing.

Oh yes he did. Or perhaps you have forgotten the list I gave you? You only seemed to answer one verse. The others were just... ignored.

He, as a good father warned them of the concequences of their actions.

Consequences he put in place!

Comes with the territory. Like a dog. I think there are not really any, or many bad dogs. There are bad owners. The animal reflects the spirit of the owner.

So if an owner shot another owner, would it be fair to incarcerate the dogs? If one moral agent A is not involved with a moral dilemma of another moral agent B, why should A be punished (or, indeed, rewarded) for B's actions?

The heathen were not His people. For the sake of mankind, He chose a people, and brought them along. Part of the lessons were that we need to look to Him, even for defence.

So he abandoned his own children in favour of looking after one child?

Many were sincere, like Nicodemus. He had a great many followers from the Jews. Some secretly, cause they were scared to come out and admit it.

That is not my question.

It is like you claim, science can't say one way or the other.

Marvellous. Then stop posting your unscientific claims in a scientific forum. They will fall on deaf ears unless they can be shown to have some scientific merit.

So who writes all those rules, and gets to say what a flipping entity is?

Very roughly speaking, an entity is any thing.

Opinion. We are very important.

There is nothing significant about us, the Earth, our solar system, etc. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, the scientific consensus falls on the logical default: insignificance.
If that offends you then, well, tough.

Life was wiped out? No. There were times of a lot of death, but we are still here, thank you very much.

Life can be wiped out but, because inaccurately replicating molecules are relatively common, it can ignite again.

So, what exactly then does A here actually represent?

A is anything you want it to be. If A=cheese, then cheese=cheese. If A=the Judaeo-Christian god, then the Judaeo-Christian god = the Judaeo-Christian god. It is a simple logical axiom.
​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I admit the same thing! You may be wrong, and I may be right

This is exactly what I said. But, do you admit that you may be wrong, and I may be right?

The probability of being right depends on what the future and past are like. It's that simple.

Completely false. Do you have any grasp of the fundamentals of statistics and probability theory?

So, you want to insult most men on earth, you better be able to prove it.

Nonsense. A claim does not change in validity depending on how many people are offended by it.
Indeed, your claims offend most people. You reject their belief systems for no rational reason. You had better be able to prove it.

Worldwide, though there may be less Christians, the numbers are still right up there. Most people believe in some form of spiritual.

Again, I am aware of this. I am still waiting for your point though.

Not in common usage. It also involves non existant time! Old ageism.

We are not discussing the colloquialism, mon ami.

Their science has been attempted to be used this way, by targeting creation, and faith, for example, in schools.They have to teach that fable.

Don't be absurd. It is Creationists who attempt to wedge their beliefs down the throats of children. Don't tell me you've never heard of the aptly named Wedge Strategy?

Not when there is nothing to be objective or not about on the one hand, and billions of witnesses on the other!

*sigh*
You said:
If I chose between absolute nothing, and a planet full of testimoies apanning all human history, I'll take what you call subjective.
I.e., you will take subjective claims (eye-witness accounts of spirituality) over objective ones (qv. Big Bang).

There is no reason to disbelieve of concequence. There are lots of reasons to believe.

Such as?

That rules out the creation debate then.

Quite so. Notice how I have not applied Occam's Razor to the entire of the Crevo debate.

This does not apply to the spiritual.

Oh but it does. Logic permeates beyond your 'split'.

It is what you do not understand that I bolded. If you do not understand the state of the past, admit it. That is the best scenario there.

You miss the point. IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICISM, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REASON TO BELIEVE IN THE PAST. ALL ARGUMENTS AUTOMATICALLY FAIL, AND WE KNOW NOTHING.
Clearer?

Not bad. But I don't consider birds and fish animals either. Let alone creepy crawlers.

What?! Why on Earth not? Please, tell me your definition of an animal!

And, so?

And so we can calculate how long it took for modern taxonomy to develop from the abiogenesis event; it comes to ~3.5 billion years.

It's called making a point. Pretend someone may not understand, and the world is reading.

Perhaps, but my point was not to do with what quantum numbers are.

Only in your mind.

On the contrary, it is not in my mind which the fantasy lies.

No. Who is creating what from what nothing, and why?

The whole thing about creation ex nihilo is that it is just that: ex nihilo. From nothing.
We have observed creation ex nihilo in phenomena such as quantum foam and the Casmir effect.
It does not require an entity to do the creating (else it would be ex entitus), nor a motive.

But I said that things evolved to cope with the cold, only difference is time. The different past allowed that to happen very very fast

Hyperevolution, eh? And how, may I ask, did this 'acceleration' occur?

No, it means that Einsteins' formula, and theories are strictly limited to this PO. They are, if you will, relative only to the box.

Care to describe a system where Einstein's forumlae do not hold?

[pointless drivil]

So, basically, your explanation is that, because there was so much lootin' to be had, the burning took longer?

See, you can't allow evolution that takes as much time as it now dows, and still come up with good bible dates.

You can't allow it? What, it's some sort of holy mission? Did it ever occur to you that the Bible may be false, or metaphorical?

But, to take it past the created kinds, you cannot do.
You just have no evidence at all.

But you, of course, have evidence of this 'hyperevolution', yes?

Drawing up a tree, with all animals arranged by similarity doesn't do it!

And why not? The evolution of a single organism retroactively leads to the phenomenon of Common Descent.

I know how old age evos would like to use the term, I also know the common usage. The term actually does not belong in a scientific arena. It is so mingled with old age same past, dream ancestor fables, that it is best used in the common usage.

Utter nonsense. If this is what you believe, then you are even more irrational than I thought.

 

[dad]

You are making baseless accusations. A hypothesis is scientific if is the simplest explanation of all the relavent facts. Usually, the very facts it is trying to explain, can be used as supporting evidence.

We are not talking usual here, but the far past and future. No matter how complicated you get, or simple, it won't matter, they are beyond your limits.

My point was that, just because something is written down, does not mean it is true. I think.

God telling us by His spirit from the inside it is right, and the impecible source of the early Christian friends and brothers, and mother, and etc of Jesus make it as true as true can be.

What do you propose this light source was? Photon emmission is a form of radioactive decay, something AV1611VET vhemently protests did not exist before the Fall.

I say it did not exist in Noah's day! So, the question becomes, what was light in the different universe? That, you can't know with science.

You totally miss the point. Without empiricism, we cannot prove anything. All we will have is conjecture and hypothesis. There will be no evidence.

The things of the present can be more or less proved or observed, etc. Beyond that, yes, all you have is conjecture, hypothesis and assumption, and belief.

Indeed. But my point was that there are other qualities that make a claim scientific. Logical consistence, for example, and simplicity.

They don't apply to the past state or future state of the universe. The only thing 'simple' is the assumption.

No, you misunderstand the term 'physical'. If something can interfere with something else, then they are part of the same local physical universe.

Oh, they can interfere all right. But spirits are seperate at the moment. In the days just before the split, angels could marry our girls, and have babies even! They were right here, and nearby. In fact, as crazy as in NOW sounds, they decided to build a tower to the spiritual level!!!!! It was that close.

And you are obsessed with the feelings of a dead monk. Occam's Razor is not the sole property of Occam. Perhaps you are getting confused by the name?

I don't like applying a holy man's concepts against his beliefs, in a misuse of them. They do not apply to the spiritual.

I never mentioned a monk. I clearly said that the existance of your god is a possible consequence of Occam's Razor.

Guess it was a compliment then.

Are we talking morally good?

Simple is not always good in any way.

The consequences of a theory are irrelevant to the validity of said theory. So what if people find it offensive, or it conclusively rules out the divine? The truth will exist irrespective of whether a few apes accept it or not.

The apes are not those who don't like a so called theory that is a fable. That cannot prove an old age common ancestor to all life, or a past that was as they merely believe, and assume for no apparent reason.

Because they tell us how the interactions in the universe happen. If the physical laws did not exist, then all things would occur simultaneously.

Who thinks physical laws do not exist???? Sounds like a strawman.

Non sequitur. Your first statement is a tautology, and an irrelevant one at that. How is it pertinent to our discussion?
Your latter statement is exactly what I said: spirituality exists in all cultures.

Not because of the natural. Because of the supernatural.

It is the most logical thing to do in the abscence of a better assumption. Care to make one?

A different past.

Non sequitur. Your are dodging the point. If the physical laws change, or if there was a time with no physical laws, then empiricism is false, and hence we can know nothing. Try to stay on track.

Not true! Focus. What we observe now is not false.

em·pir·i·cism

1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

http://www.answers.com/topic/empiricism

It is simply not the only source of knowledge.

I did not say that I couldn't, or wouldn't, explain it. I merely mentioned that it is not my responsibility to explain it. If my intention here was to teach you about quantum theory, then I would explain to you quantum theory. Since this is not why I am here, it is not what I will do, unless you request otherwise.

Maybe you could explain the bit you mention, especially as to how it relates to the topic at hand.

So, your 'spiritual-physical construct mass' is erroneous.

Why? Did you think you would find the stuff in the PO?

Yes, really. You would condemn the world to famine, plague, death, disease, pain, torture, war, and suffering, just so it can have the 'gift' of free will?

Would you rather we were all dead? Remember, we also have access to heaven, by simply getting saved, and accepting the free gift of His son!

I'm sure your deity could have concieved of a way to create humanity with the illusion of chioce, with the illusion of free will. Is this not a compromise that your god willfully rejected?

Hey, it doesn't get any more real.

I thought it was the consequence of free will? Do you really subscribe to both the Iranaen and Aquinian theodicies?

Well, God endowed us with free will. When He has to step in, to overrule that for man, the age of man on his own, and sin is over.

By being instantly created with such knowledge.

Well, why not create instant 'memories' of great sex, and great food, and an education, and loves, and successes and failures, etc as well? No, we are for real, our will is real, and this life is a learning experience. Like grade 1, we move on to the next grade, keeping what we learned here, in the coming life.

Then morality is not absolute! The definition of an absolute morality is one which does not change per person or per situation.

There is lots of that too. But there is also a time for everything, and many things which may be exceptions to the rule. But here are absolutes.

Oh yes he did. Or perhaps you have forgotten the list I gave you? You only seemed to answer one verse. The others were just... ignored.

Hey, I took care of the first one on the list. It would take days or weeks to knock off every list you might dream up. I figure the list is only about as good as the first thing on it/ AS if the last several posts were not long enough!

Consequences he put in place!

Right, there is a reason for things. Othereise how would we learn?

So if an owner shot another owner, would it be fair to incarcerate the dogs?

They could get caught in a crossfire. But why kill dogs for nothing? Doesn't mean the wicked man's dog may not run into trouble. Maybe he let it go in the basement, and the nice clean new owners feel they have to put it down? Or maybe leave it in a lttle pen outside all the time?

If one moral agent A is not involved with a moral dilemma of another moral agent B, why should A be punished (or, indeed, rewarded) for B's actions?

The dog of the wicked guy was involved, because it picked up some things from the evil atmosphere there perhaps. Depends on the degree. Maybe it wan't that evil a place, and it may just get yelled at a little extra, for some bad habits it learned.

So he abandoned his own children in favour of looking after one child?

He preffered His Own, as they had things to learn to benefir all mankind, and needed protecting.

Marvellous. Then stop posting your unscientific claims in a scientific forum. They will fall on deaf ears unless they can be shown to have some scientific merit.

They have all the merit yours do.

Very roughly speaking, an entity is any thing.

So, 'anything' it is then. I would include that as a subset in the set 'everything' then. And everything about old age evolution, stellar, or biological is a lot more complicated than simple creation!

There is nothing significant about us, the Earth, our solar system, etc.

Pretty chilling evo doctrines there.

1Ti 4:1 -Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, the scientific consensus falls on the logical default: insignificance.

No. That is dark dreaming.
Jude 1:8 - Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

If that offends you then, well, tough.

Guess I might say the same.

Life can be wiped out but, because inaccurately replicating molecules are relatively common, it can ignite again.

No, life on earth was always here, as man, since creation. Except for that which died out.

A is anything you want it to be. If A=cheese, then cheese=cheese. If A=the Judaeo-Christian god, then the Judaeo-Christian god = the Judaeo-Christian god. It is a simple logical axiom.

How about Applicable?​

 

[dad]

This is exactly what I said. But, do you admit that you may be wrong, and I may be right?

Of course not. Why would I assume the bible false with no proof??

Completely false. Do you have any grasp of the fundamentals of statistics and probability theory?

Enough to say, it's probably wrong here.

Nonsense. A claim does not change in validity depending on how many people are offended by it.
Indeed, your claims offend most people. You reject their belief systems for no rational reason. You had better be able to prove it.

I can prove that you can't prove the same past, upon which it all is based. I'll do it now, for fun. If you can prove a same past, do it now! See?
I don't have a scientific claim of the different past, I have a reasoned, biblical, and evidence based, claim.

Again, I am aware of this. I am still waiting for your point though.

That the spititual is a known factor. Well known, in fact.

We are not discussing the colloquialism, mon ami.

Realism. Evolution, and what it realistically is seen to mean.

Don't be absurd. It is Creationists who attempt to wedge their beliefs down the throats of children. Don't tell me you've never heard of the aptly named Wedge Strategy?

They can, that's fine. They are right. Except the science bits.

I.e., you will take subjective claims (eye-witness accounts of spirituality) over objective ones (qv. Big Bang).

Big bang is an assumption expansion first happens, then that it can be imagined in reverse for countless non existant years. And other things involving a PO past. Nothing objective about that.

Such as?

Prophesy of the bible. The ressurection. Also the testimony of those that tried God.

Quite so. Notice how I have not applied Occam's Razor to the entire of the Crevo debate.

If we look at what is simpler, a same or different past, it is the created different one!

Oh but it does. Logic permeates beyond your 'split'.

Not PO logic!

You miss the point. IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICISM, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REASON TO BELIEVE IN THE PAST. ALL ARGUMENTS AUTOMATICALLY FAIL, AND WE KNOW NOTHING.
Clearer?

There is observation of some of the past. Lots of it. Not the far past though.

What?! Why on Earth not? Please, tell me your definition of an animal!

Things that were created the day we were. Things we named. Not every bug, and germ, or worm, etc. Fish and birds were a different day.

And so we can calculate how long it took for modern taxonomy to develop from the abiogenesis event; it comes to ~3.5 billion years.

Based on what?

Perhaps, but my point was not to do with what quantum numbers are.

So, it was what?

On the contrary, it is not in my mind which the fantasy lies.

Says you.

The whole thing about creation ex nihilo is that it is just that: ex nihilo. From nothing.
We have observed creation ex nihilo in phenomena such as quantum foam and the Casmir effect.
It does not require an entity to do the creating (else it would be ex entitus), nor a motive.

In other words, you can't see where it is coming from yet. To your science, it appears as if from nothing.

Hyperevolution, eh? And how, may I ask, did this 'acceleration' occur?

It was a different life process, and molecular, and atomic changes. Cells were quite different, cause we lived near a thousand years.

Care to describe a system where Einstein's forumlae do not hold?

Easy. Anywhere out of the box! It is just this PO universe it applies. That means it is a temporary theory, very limited in scope, as all it deals with is this natural universe. It'll soon go the way of the dodo bird.

So, basically, your explanation is that, because there was so much lootin' to be had, the burning took longer?

Well, that was my reaction, and feeling. But the commentary had some ideas as well.

You can't allow it? What, it's some sort of holy mission? Did it ever occur to you that the Bible may be false, or metaphorical?

If a YEC believes God is true, and the bible, we cannot allow old ages. Otherwise the bible is useless.

But you, of course, have evidence of this 'hyperevolution', yes?

Logical, and biblical. Science has nothing I have heard yet to say about it! What else is new?

And why not? The evolution of a single organism retroactively leads to the phenomenon of Common Descent.

No, it leads to the animals on the ark! Before that, to Eden. There was no before that.

Utter nonsense. If this is what you believe, then you are even more irrational than I thought.

It is experience. I have known what a lot of people refer to as 'evolution'
We think of it as an attempt to get rid of God, and the truth, and creation. It has almost the same connotation as 'enemy', or 'devil', or 'lies', or 'evil'.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

No, the change was from the original merged state, to this state, where the laws here came to exist.


It happened, apparently about the time of Babel, in the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided (split). People could hardly talk to each other, and to communicate, had to use pictures, in many cases. Hieroglyphics.

Ok let me rephrase my question


What makes you believe there was a formation of the laws of physics, specifically about the time of Babel?

(Btw those hieroglyphs, were a very sophisticated language system, complex astronomical calculations were done before the time of Babel, using the Sumerian hieroglyphs)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We are not talking usual here, but the far past and future. No matter how complicated you get, or simple, it won't matter, they are beyond your limits.

If they are beyond my capabilities, then they are certainly beyond yours. Remember, an ad hominem a day keeps the trolls away.

God telling us by His spirit from the inside it is right,

Subjective. You may be sincere, but there is no way of objectively known. Ever considered that you get a rush of endorphins when in a nebulous or meditative state?

and the impecible source of the early Christian friends and brothers, and mother, and etc of Jesus make it as true as true can be.

Impecible? I think not.

I say it did not exist in Noah's day! So, the question becomes, what was light in the different universe? That, you can't know with science.

No. Light is electromagnetic radiation, and is only emmitted during an electron cascade. Unless, of course, you imply that there are no physical laws in the old universe.

The things of the present can be more or less proved or observed, etc. Beyond that, yes, all you have is conjecture, hypothesis and assumption, and belief.

We both will. No claim, be it Evolutionist, Creationist, Christian, Atheist, whatever.

They don't apply to the past state or future state of the universe.

Why on Earth not?

Oh, they can interfere all right. But spirits are seperate at the moment.

I am not questioning whether they can interfere or not. If they interfere with us, then they are of the physical universe.

In the days just before the split, angels could marry our girls, and have babies even! They were right here, and nearby. In fact, as crazy as in NOW sounds, they decided to build a tower to the spiritual level!!!!! It was that close.

Fascinating fable. Did you get that from your Bible?

I don't like applying a holy man's concepts against his beliefs, in a misuse of them.

That is your perogative. However, I will continue to apply the concept, since it is neither the property of the monk, nor is he the sole author.

They do not apply to the spiritual.

Oh yes they do.

Guess it was a compliment then.

Not really. I do not want your theology to be true. I was merely remarking that all logical things are possible, including your theology.

Simple is not always good in any way.

I ask again: are we talking morally good?

The apes are not those who don't like a so called theory that is a fable.

Actually, a small number of apes do believe in the 'theory' that is Creationism. Noone yet knows why.

Who thinks physical laws do not exist????

You have given me two claims so far: that the pre-split laws were different, and that the pre-split universe had no laws.
Which one are you for?

Sounds like a strawman.

You would chastise me for making a strawman? Hah! Hippocracy most high.

Not because of the natural. Because of the supernatural.

Unless you can prove the existance of the supernatural, do not make such catagoric statements.

A different past.

OK. How is it more logical?

Not true! Focus. What we observe now is not false.
http://www.answers.com/topic/empiricism
It is simply not the only source of knowledge.

We are arguing semantics here. 'My definition is more right than yours!' 'Oh no it's not!' 'Oh yes it is!'.

Would you rather we were all dead?

I said nothing of the kind.

Remember, we also have access to heaven, by simply getting saved, and accepting the free gift of His son!

Why do we need free will to get into your heaven? Surely your god could create an eternal paradise open to everyone?

Well, why not create instant 'memories' of great sex, and great food, and an education, and loves, and successes and failures, etc as well?

Why not indeed. It would certainly allow us to be happy, and never suffer.

No, we are for real, our will is real, and this life is a learning experience. Like grade 1, we move on to the next grade, keeping what we learned here, in the coming life.

I am not arguing that we don't have free will. I am asking why we have free will.

There is lots of that too. But there is also a time for everything, and many things which may be exceptions to the rule. But here are absolutes.

So your believe in an absolute morality, that has circumstantial exceptions?

Hey, I took care of the first one on the list. It would take days or weeks to knock off every list you might dream up.

Actually, one medium sized post should do it.

I figure the list is only about as good as the first thing on it/

Nonsense. It is traditional to start with the easy and end on the hard. Have you never taken an exam?

Right, there is a reason for things. Othereise how would we learn?

Utter non sequitur. The existance of arbitary punishment does not imply a purpose, and a purpose does not imply an ability to learn. How on Earth do you get such thoughts?

They could get caught in a crossfire. But why kill dogs for nothing? Doesn't mean the wicked man's dog may not run into trouble. Maybe he let it go in the basement, and the nice clean new owners feel they have to put it down? Or maybe leave it in a lttle pen outside all the time?
The dog of the wicked guy was involved, because it picked up some things from the evil atmosphere there perhaps. Depends on the degree. Maybe it wan't that evil a place, and it may just get yelled at a little extra, for some bad habits it learned.

You've missed the point of the example.
If one moral agent A is not involved with a moral dilemma of another moral agent B, why should A be punished (or, indeed, rewarded) for B's actions?
If you do something bad, should I be punished? If you do something bad, should your child be punished?

They have all the merit yours do.

On the contrary, you stated above that you will not use Occam's Razor in a scientific context. Thus, you cannot abide by the scientific method.

So, 'anything' it is then. I would include that as a subset in the set 'everything' then.

I believe 'any thing' is the same set as 'everything'. They are both the omega sets, after all.

And everything about old age evolution, stellar, or biological is a lot more complicated than simple creation!

1) No, they are not. You invoke a deity.
2) This axiom has nothing to do with simplicity.

Pretty chilling evo doctrines there.

So?

No. That is dark dreaming.

Non sequitur. Stay on track.

No, life on earth was always here, as man, since creation. Except for that which died out.

You cannot prove this, and you reject empiricism. What do you hope to acomplish?

How about Applicable?

Yes. The english adjective 'Applicable' is identicle to the english adjective 'Applicable'. Did you mean to make a point?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Of course not. Why would I assume the bible false with no proof??

You reject the Al-Qu'ran, the writings of the Bahá'u'lláh, the Wiccan Rede, the Asatrú and Poetic Edda, the Buddhist Tipitaka, the Hindu Śruti and Smriti, and the Shinto Kojiki, without proof. Why not the Bible?

Enough to say, it's probably wrong here.

I'll take that as a no.

I can prove that you can't prove the same past, upon which it all is based. I'll do it now, for fun. If you can prove a same past, do it now! See?

Lack of proof dies not constitute disproof. You know this. It is the only reason your claim is begotten posts this long.

I don't have a scientific claim of the different past, I have a reasoned, biblical, and evidence based, claim.

Then what is your reason for this thread?

That the spititual is a known factor. Well known, in fact.

Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true.

Realism. Evolution, and what it realistically is seen to mean.

This is funny. You think that Realism is about what things realistically mean!

They can, that's fine. They are right.

What?! You actually support it? Good lord.

Big bang is an assumption expansion first happens, then that it can be imagined in reverse for countless non existant years. And other things involving a PO past. Nothing objective about that.

Since the Big Bang works under the assumption that empiricism is true, it is objective.

Prophesy of the bible. The ressurection. Also the testimony of those that tried God.

There are no real Biblical prophecies, the ressurection did not happen, and testimony is not objective.
Try again.

If we look at what is simpler, a same or different past, it is the created different one!

Nope. Constants are more likely that variables. Unless you can explain how this spilt occured, of course.

Not PO logic!

You've missed the whole logic debate up above. Logic is not bound by to the physical universe. It is constant in all everything.

There is observation of some of the past. Lots of it. Not the far past though.

There are no observations without empiricism. That's the whole point.

Things that were created the day we were. Things we named. Not every bug, and germ, or worm, etc. Fish and birds were a different day.

Ah, you go by your English Bible. Cute. But bear in mind that, in a science forum, the scientific terms are going to be used.

Based on what?[/quote
Now you're just being fesicious. I just posted that, given a predictable rate and a current value, time can be calculated.
An analogy: A runner runs 250 m at 10 m/s. How long does it take? Since Dx/Dt=dx/dt, we have 250/Dt=10. Solving for Dt we get Dt=250/10=25 s.

Says you.

No, says both of us. The argument works both ways, and so is redundant.

In other words, you can't see where it is coming from yet.

No. If you cannot grasp this contcept by now, I'm going to give up. It is futile to teach music to the deaf, or language to the mute.

It was a different life process, and molecular, and atomic changes. Cells were quite different, cause we lived near a thousand years.

Unjustified assertions. What rationale do you have for these claims?

Easy. Anywhere out of the box! It is just this PO universe it applies. That means it is a temporary theory, very limited in scope, as all it deals with is this natural universe. It'll soon go the way of the dodo bird.

Not quite. Einstein's formulae are mathematically formulated. Unless you can disprove the universality of mathematics, Einstein's forumlae are true everywhere.

If a YEC believes God is true, and the bible, we cannot allow old ages. Otherwise the bible is useless.

Why not accept that the Bible is useless and move on?

Logical, and biblical. Science has nothing I have heard yet to say about it! What else is new?

It is logical only under the a priori assumption that the Bible is true. Since such an assumption is illogical, so is your conclusion.

No, it leads to the animals on the ark! Before that, to Eden. There was no before that.

Wrong again. If the ark phenomenon existed, then all exant organisms would be horribly inbred to the point that there could not be any exant macroorganisms.

It is experience. I have known what a lot of people refer to as 'evolution'

Then they are being scientifically incorrect. This is fine if you are not trying to be scientific, but when you debate a scientific theory in a scientific arena, you are expected to use the common terminology of the scientists. Convention exists for a reason.

We think of it as an attempt to get rid of God, and the truth, and creation. It has almost the same connotation as 'enemy', or 'devil', or 'lies', or 'evil'.

Then you are more narcissitic that I imagined.

 

[dad]

Ok let me rephrase my question


What makes you believe there was a formation of the laws of physics, specifically about the time of Babel?

What makes you think there wasn't??? No science directly can tell us either. So, aside from time travel, how can we determine what went on?
I use the history of time, and man. Specifically, the documents that cover the past and future, from the creator.

(Btw those hieroglyphs, were a very sophisticated language system, complex astronomical calculations were done before the time of Babel, using the Sumerian hieroglyphs)

I never said man was dumb then!! I simply noted that their ideas, as clever as they were, had to be communicated by pictures for awhile. The reason is not because we got a stupido bug all of a sudden, but, that there was a scattering and dividing of the languages, so people could not understand each other.
This is also an evidence that a change involving the spiritual happened. Why? Because in the new testament we see that when the spirit was applied, a sign of this was that thousands listening all heard the words in their native tongues! So, we add the spiritual component, all languages are understood. At Babel, we take away the spiritual component, and all languages are divided.

 

[dad]

You reject the Al-Qu'ran, the writings of the Bahá'u'lláh, the Wiccan Rede, the Asatrú and Poetic Edda, the Buddhist Tipitaka, the Hindu Śruti and Smriti, and the Shinto Kojiki, without proof. Why not the Bible?

Says who? I think that a lot of the other books have some basis in spiritual things. I don't chose them as my own guidelines, however, cause I think that the Great Spirit is Jesus! I think He is the only way to the Living God, creator of all. Therfore, just because some spirit appears to some, or someone got a miracle, does not mean it was from a good spirit!

I'll take that as a no.

No, as pertains to the past and future, and created state of the whole, true natural universe, they are probably just not applicible. Can you show they are?

Lack of proof dies not constitute disproof. You know this. It is the only reason your claim is begotten posts this long.

I have no lack of proof that you lack proof! Why would anyone worry about a so called science claim that totally lacks proof?

Then what is your reason for this thread?

It was exploring some aspect of the different past, that is space, and how it may have been somewhat different. At least water travelling in it may have not froze after the flood, etc. But science can't tell us that. All the poor little guy can do is try and show how it now works, and from there we can detect if there was a difference, and maybe some details about the differences.

Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true.

When most men through all history believe in some form of spiritual, I take that as good evidence. A piece in the puzzle.

This is funny. You think that Realism is about what things realistically mean!

What would you define realism as? 'The wilder and more baseless, and unbiblical fantasy we could possibly cook up'?

What?! You actually support it? Good lord.

I support bible believers, and God in the schools, and prayer, and creation. If those that try to acheive this have been weak in their science, I still support them. I would suggest they get something stronger, like the split, that can defeat any science challenge. But, hey, they do the best they can with what they have to work with.
Any place that hasa majority of believers, I feel ought to chose the things they want kids to learn. It is their duty to God. It is an order from God. They have really failed there, and ought to fix that today. Not next week.

Since the Big Bang works under the assumption that empiricism is true, it is objective.

No,
"em·pir·i·cism The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge."
I never experienced the universe being just PO, and in a speck so small, it could fit on the head of a pin. I never observed a same past. I never tested a hot soup that contained trillions of galaxies!

There are no real Biblical prophecies, the ressurection did not happen, and testimony is not objective.
Try again.

They are well known, hundreds of them. 100% accurate. I hardly need a newspaper, it is so well laid out! Jesus lives, and is known by millions.

Nope. Constants are more likely that variables. Unless you can explain how this spilt occured, of course.

It involved the spiritual. What can you tell us about that?

You've missed the whole logic debate up above. Logic is not bound by to the physical universe. It is constant in all everything.

No, that is your little concept, and claim, from in the box. Doesn't mean a thing. Prove it. God is not on any leash of your so called logic. He has greater wisdom. He knows how the PO works, and how the spiritual works, and how the merged works. Part of logic involves some access to a fair portion of the facts.

There are no observations without empiricism. That's the whole point.

None that your unsaved senses can detect, or poor pitiful PO science, that is the point.

Ah, you go by your English Bible. Cute. But bear in mind that, in a science forum, the scientific terms are going to be used.

Well, you asked what I thought was an animal, not the current, wrong scientific term for the word. So sue me.

Based on what?[/quote
Now you're just being fesicious. I just posted that, given a predictable rate and a current value, time can be calculated.
An analogy: A runner runs 250 m at 10 m/s. How long does it take? Since Dx/Dt=dx/dt, we have 250/Dt=10. Solving for Dt we get Dt=250/10=25 s.

Who cares how long a runner takes??? We know the speed of the runner now, and when he or she started out. We know the runner was the same runner, not a tag team. We could not apply that little anology, say, to light. We don't know the state of the universe, and light when it started out, or if it was the same light!

Unjustified assertions. What rationale do you have for these claims?

Science does not say otherwise. The bible indicates major change, both in the past and future. I don't think that man even had blood pre fall, or that our new bodies will have it. This is the magnitude of the kind of changes we are talking about. Yes, Noah had blood, and Adam after the fall, but they still lived century after century, after century, after century, after century, after century, after century, after century, after century!

Not quite. Einstein's formulae are mathematically formulated. Unless you can disprove the universality of mathematics, Einstein's forumlae are true everywhere.

That's easy. We live about say, 80 years now. We will live forever, do the math!
The sun would last about 5 billion years as is, or whatever they calculate. It will last forever! Do the math. God was here before man invented numbers! Do the math. If a dove came by a mountain that was 7000 feet tall, and gently brushed it's wing on the mountain top, and came again every hundred years doing the same, how long would it take to wear the whole mountain into the ground, totally flat? That would be like the first day of eternity! Do the math.

It is logical only under the a priori assumption that the Bible is true. Since such an assumption is illogical, so is your conclusion.

It is far far far more logical than your apriori assumptions, and actually based on something!

Wrong again. If the ark phenomenon existed, then all exant organisms would be horribly inbred to the point that there could not be any exant macroorganisms.

False, man, like in Eden (and creatures) had no worries on that score at all. That is how different it was.

Then they are being scientifically incorrect. This is fine if you are not trying to be scientific, but when you debate a scientific theory in a scientific arena, you are expected to use the common terminology of the scientists. Convention exists for a reason.

Scientists are a tiny minority of those that use the english word evolution. When talking to creationists, do not expect a connotation of the word to always be tailored to the BELIEFS of that minority!

 

[lemmings]

dad, what do you mean by 'good spirit', you follow God right? You are aware that only people that Satan has ever killed where Job's children after God let him in a bet? God however has killed millions, repeditly, and is planing on killing over 2 billion more in the Rapture.

 

[dad]

Subjective. You may be sincere, but there is no way of objectively known.

Not true, the bible says try it, and we will know. I tried it and I know. Not trying it is subjective.

Impecible? I think not.

Above reproach.

No. Light is electromagnetic radiation, and is only emmitted during an electron cascade. Unless, of course, you imply that there are no physical laws in the old universe.

Why would physical laws exist as such in a universe where it is not PO?? It has it's own laws.

We both will. No claim, be it Evolutionist, Creationist, Christian, Atheist, whatever.

Only as far as SCIENCE is concerned, and that isn't very far!

Why on Earth not?

Why shoud they? Think of heaven, can you apply it there?

I am not questioning whether they can interfere or not. If they interfere with us, then they are of the physical universe.

No. Gabriel appeared to Mary, but is not of this world.

Fascinating fable. Did you get that from your Bible?

Yes. Angels and earth women got it on.

That is your perogative. However, I will continue to apply the concept, since it is neither the property of the monk, nor is he the sole author.

Apply it in box all you wish, that's what it's there for!

Oh yes they do.

Prove that your dictums apply to God, and the spiritual world then?

Not really. I do not want your theology to be true. I was merely remarking that all logical things are possible, including your theology.

OK, so you calim it is logical. Fine.

I ask again: are we talking morally good?

I mean that simple is not always best.

Actually, a small number of apes do believe in the 'theory' that is Creationism. Noone yet knows why.

Glad you have some repertoire with them, and think you know what they feel.

You have given me two claims so far: that the pre-split laws were different, and that the pre-split universe had no laws.
Which one are you for?

No, you misunderstood! The pre split universe did not have our laws, they have their laws.

You would chastise me for making a strawman? Hah! Hippocracy most high.

You were busted.

Unless you can prove the existance of the supernatural, do not make such catagoric statements.

Well, the supernatural is what most people believe in, so saying that is not just the natural is common sense.

OK. How is it more logical?

Because we don't have to hide our heads in the sand and ignore the spiritual known quantity. Because we don't have to toss out the bible, and God. Because it fits the evidence we do have. because it makes sense, more than squishing up the whole universe and stuffing it in a can, and assuming we came from a worm.

I said nothing of the kind.

Well, sounded like you felt it was so bad it would be better not existing.

Why do we need free will to get into your heaven? Surely your god could create an eternal paradise open to everyone?

He did, they left it.

Why not indeed. It would certainly allow us to be happy, and never suffer.

Life is in the living, not in some induced state of so called well being, in a mindless, zombie who never loved, and lived, and learned.

I am not arguing that we don't have free will. I am asking why we have free will.

The devil seems to wonder the same thing. So great is the gift, like eternal life, it boggles the mind.

So your believe in an absolute morality, that has circumstantial exceptions?

Ha. Well, sounds a little vague. But, if God makes exceptions here and there, why not?

Actually, one medium sized post should do it.

Hey, I already whacked a couple of those bible doubts you raised. Let's not get like in a fair, where they have a machine, where you have a little hammer, and have to whack the litttle ground squirels that pop up. I can't spend all day whacking doubts.

Nonsense. It is traditional to start with the easy and end on the hard. Have you never taken an exam?

Well, depends on the list.

Utter non sequitur. The existance of arbitary punishment does not imply a purpose, and a purpose does not imply an ability to learn. How on Earth do you get such thoughts?

I don't agree. Actions and reactions indicate a law at work. A law indicates a LawMaker.

You've missed the point of the example.
If one moral agent A is not involved with a moral dilemma of another moral agent B, why should A be punished (or, indeed, rewarded) for B's actions?
If you do something bad, should I be punished? If you do something bad, should your child be punished?

Comes with the territory. Our parents rub off somewhat on us. Sometimes that can be serious. Foe example, I one was a crystal meth user, and had a lab in one's house. The child could be exposed to maybe, mold, or maybe chemicals, or something bad. Also, if his parents got busted, the child could have a tougher road to walk. Maybe the child gets older, and takes drugs like his parents, that can lead to death, or frying out the mind, or a life of protitution, etc etc.

On the contrary, you stated above that you will not use Occam's Razor in a scientific context. Thus, you cannot abide by the scientific method.

Sure I can, everywhere it applies! That would be in box.

I believe 'any thing' is the same set as 'everything'. They are both the omega sets, after all.

You seem to include 'nothing' as well!

So?

They should be treated as such.

Non sequitur. Stay on track.

Pointing out dreaming is on track, when dreams are all you have for the past.

You cannot prove this, and you reject empiricism. What do you hope to acomplish?

You cannot prove otherwise, and can't claim it is empiricism.

"(

mp

r´

s

z

m) ([SIZE=-1]KEY[/SIZE]) [Gr.,=experience], philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its operations—as well as sense perception. This position is opposed to rationalism in that it denies the existence of innate ideas. According to the empiricist, all ideas are derived from experience; therefore, knowledge of the physical world can be nothing more than a generalization from particular instances and can never reach more than a high degree of probability. .."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/em/empirici.html

Yes. The english adjective 'Applicable' is identicle to the english adjective 'Applicable'. Did you mean to make a point?

Yes, in what way is there a pont that is applicible in your formulas, etc you posted?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

What makes you think there wasn't???

I know, only that that I see, and only that which is justified

from day to day I have never experienced a formation of/change in laws of physics, and I have read no documents from people living around the time of Babel, which say there was,

Look, if it did happen around that time, people living then would have recorded it, however, none have done so,

Astronomical observations, were made before Babel, and after, however there is no shift (apart from minor advancements) in the was astronomy was handled, meaning the laws of physics stayed intact

Logically this leads me to a conclusion, from writings and evidence of people living at the time, that such an event did not occur

What writing and empirical data, led you to a conclusion that such an event did occur?





No science directly can tell us either. So, aside from time travel, how can we determine what went on?

As I explained above, read from the people living then, and look at what they did

Specifically, the documents that cover the past and future, from the creator.

Ok which specific documents, from any God, who called him/herself the creator, mention a split in the laws of physics around the time of Babel?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Says who? I think that a lot of the other books have some basis in spiritual things. I don't chose them as my own guidelines, however, cause I think that the Great Spirit is Jesus! I think He is the only way to the Living God, creator of all. Therfore, just because some spirit appears to some, or someone got a miracle, does not mean it was from a good spirit!

I.e., you reject the beliefs of others. Do you deny this? If you do, then you must simultaneously believe in monotheisms and polytheisms.

No, as pertains to the past and future, and created state of the whole, true natural universe, they are probably just not applicible. Can you show they are?

Can you? You catagorically claim that you are more likely to be right, whilst simultaneously rejecting Occam's Razor, and with no justification. Don't forget that the Razor is a probabilistic tool, and points to my claim, not yours.

I have no lack of proof that you lack proof!

I.e., you have proof that I lack proof. What is it?

It was exploring some aspect of the different past, that is space, and how it may have been somewhat different. At least water travelling in it may have not froze after the flood, etc. But science can't tell us that. All the poor little guy can do is try and show how it now works, and from there we can detect if there was a difference, and maybe some details about the differences.

If you start toying with the idea that the physical laws are mutable, then empiricism is negated. If the physical laws are mutable, then there is an infinite number of possible (even actual) pasts, an an infinite number of those correlate with the Bible. However, since the there is a larger infinite number that does not correlate with the Bible, the odds are still in favour of the true past (if one can indeed meaningfully exist) being non-Biblical.

When most men through all history believe in some form of spiritual, I take that as good evidence.

Then you do not understand that correlation does not imply causation. It is more likely that it is a product of human neurology than actual divinity.

That would you define realism as? 'The wilder and more baseless, and unbiblical fantasy we could possibly cook up'?

Realism in philosophy is the belief that reality exists independant of observers.
Do not be so arrogant to yet again assume that people base their beliefs on their acceptance or rejection of your sacred text ('...and unbiblical fantasy...')

I support bible believers, and God in the schools, and prayer, and creation.

Unequivocally? If a Bible believer raped children for a living, would you support them? Blind faith is never a good thing, mon ami. That is why we have objective reasoning in science and law.

Any place that hasa majority of believers, I feel ought to chose the things they want kids to learn.

Nonsense. Children should be taught the truth. In science classes, they should be objectively taught to think logically with respect to scientific ideas, principles, and theories. In religious education, they should be objectively taught about different religions and spiritual traditions. In history classes, they should be taught what is known about various aspects of the past.
You cannot pick-n-mix a childs education from the relevant and irrelevant.

It is their duty to God. It is an order from God.

This is a Christian mentality to the Christian god. What if the majority of believers are Fundamentalist Muslims hellbent on nuking the west (an extreme example, but you get my point). Would you support their right to teach what they want?

No,
"em·pir·i·cism The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge."
I never experienced the universe being just PO, and in a speck so small, it could fit on the head of a pin. I never observed a same past. I never tested a hot soup that contained trillions of galaxies!

Experiance is not limited to direct observation. Logical deduction is the second facet of it (the first being, obviously, direct observation).

They are well known, hundreds of them. 100% accurate.

Nonsense. If the Bible had 100% accurate prophecies, then everyone would believe in the Bible.
Please, show us some of these prophecies.

I hardly need a newspaper, it is so well laid out!

Quite.

Jesus lives, and is known by millions.

It is believed by millions. This does not make it true.

It involved the spiritual. What can you tell us about that?

I can tell you lots about what I believe the spiritual to be. However, you cannot say 'it involved the spiritual' and leave it as that. It is synonymous with 'goddidit'. If anything, such an explanation violates the scientific principle of Causal Explanation.

God is not on any leash of your so called logic.

My 'so called' logic? You claim that my logic is flawed? Please, correct me! It appears that you have single-handedly trumped the entire worlds of empiricism, science, mathematics, and objectivism, not to mention logic. Such a triumphant discovery must be told to the world.
However, if you would like to rephrase, do so by all means. We wouldn't want anyone to misinterprit you.

He has greater wisdom.

If you think logic is related to wisdom, then you might want to get a dictionary.

None that your unsaved senses can detect, or poor pitiful PO science, that is the point.

No! Jesus, why you so stubborn? Observation only exists because of Empiricism. It has nothing to do with some theological crap about 'You're not a Christian™ so you couldn't possibly understand why I'm so obviously right'.

Well, you asked what I thought was an animal, not the current, wrong scientific term for the word. So sue me.

Indeed I did. Did I say you were wrong? No. However, do not catagorically state that a scientific term is 'wrong' with no justification. In a scientific context, the scientific definition is true. A biological animal may be different to a Biblical animal. Since this is a scientific context, we use the biological terminology as a default unless otherwise specified.

Who cares how long a runner takes???

It was an analogy. You know what that is, yes?

We know the runner was the same runner, not a tag team.

And how do we know this? Oh yes, because an observer recorded it. Similarily, people recorded the physical laws at the time before, during, and after your 'split'. They did not change.

Science does not say otherwise.

You said:
It was a different life process, and molecular, and atomic changes. Cells were quite different, cause we lived near a thousand years.
According to the scientific consensus, at the time of your 'split' (4000? 6000 years ago?), biological systems were very much as they are today, and chemical systems were exactly as they are today.
So science does indeed say otherwise.

The bible indicates major change, both in the past and future.

The Bible is irrelevant conjecture until proven otherwise.

I don't think that man even had blood pre fall, or that our new bodies will have it.

What? Vertibrates are incapable of surviving without blood.

This is the magnitude of the kind of changes we are talking about. Yes, Noah had blood, and Adam after the fall, but they still lived century after century, after century, after century, after century, after century, after century, after century, after century!

You have no support for your claim of such extended lifespans. Don't forget that, until you can show the Bible to be something more than the ramblings of madmen, it is not valid support.

That's easy.
We live about say, 80 years now. We will live forever, do the math!
The sun would last about 5 billion years as is, or whatever they calculate. It will last forever! Do the math.
God was here before man invented numbers! Do the math.
If a dove came by a mountain that was 7000 feet tall, and gently brushed it's wing on the mountain top, and came again every hundred years doing the same, how long would it take to wear the whole mountain into the ground, totally flat? That would be like the first day of eternity! Do the math.

1) You have not shown that mathematics is not universal.
2) You repeatidly say 'Do the math'. What math?
3) Your examples:
3a) The Sun is predicted to become a red giant in ~5.5 billion years. It will not last forever. What math do you wish me to do?
3b) Humans did not invent numbers. Your god is a product of humanity, not vice versa. What math do you wish me to do?
3c) If we assume the dove to not be worn away first, and if we let the initial number of atoms in the mountain be S(0), the number of atoms in the mountain at time t be S(t), and the number of atoms worn away per hundred years be a constant ds, then the time taken for S(t)=0 (i.e., no more atoms) is given by t = S(0) / ds centuries. However, while this is a large amount of time, it is not eternity, not by a long shot.

It is far far far more logical than your apriori assumptions, and actually based on something!

I'm sorry? How does this ad hominem refute my statement? What is it based on? How is it more logical? What a priori assumptions have I made?

False, man, like in Eden (and creatures) had no worries on that score at all. That is how different it was.

Ah, of course. It was different. You don't know how, you don't know why, you don't have any proof or evidence or supporting logic, you don't have any non-a priori assumptions. But you are 100% convinced that you are right. Remarkable, isn't it, what humans are capable of convincing themselves of.

Scientists are a tiny minority of those that use the english word evolution. When talking to creationists, do not expect a connotation of the word to always be tailored to the BELIEFS of that minority!

Ooh, watch our, you found the caps-lock! I do not see the point in your argument. It is true that scientists are a minority. That is why the colloquial definition of evolution is just that: colloquial. In the scientific arena, however, scientists are hugely the majority, and so their definition of evolution is used in the scientific arena.
Again, convention exists for a reason. Typically, the scientfic definition is used when talking seriously about a scientific principle. Why use any a non-scientific definition in a scientific arena?

 

[dad]

I know, only that that I see,

Then you don't know very much, cause we can't see that much.

and only that which is justified

Says who? God? You? Man?...?

from day to day I have never experienced a formation of/change in laws of physics,

Me either. There was none for many thousands of years.

and I have read no documents from people living around the time of Babel, which say there was,

Who was living after the tower of Babel, that you can quote here? I'd be interested to see that one. I think you are 'kidding'.

Look, if it did happen around that time, people living then would have recorded it, however, none have done so,

Well, that was a century after the flood. Who exactly would report what to whom how? What are they going to do, draw a picture? And how much would they know? 'Gee, I feel somewhat different, maybe my molecular and atomic structure, and that of the rocks has changed?' Or, 'the light somehow seems different'

Astronomical observations, were made before Babel, and after, however there is no shift (apart from minor advancements) in the was astronomy was handled, meaning the laws of physics stayed intact

Babylon begins

The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens&#8217 by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.2"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/peleg.asp



This means that it was maybe three years after the split (rough estimation).


Now, if you want to go befor that, likely you would be talking Egypt. That won't help your case!
"At 1100 BC, Amenhope created a catalogue of the universe in which only five constellations are recognized. They also listed 36 groups of stars called decans.."

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/astronomy.html

Logically this leads me to a conclusion, from writings and evidence of people living at the time, that such an event did not occur

Well let's see you support that claim.

What writing and empirical data, led you to a conclusion that such an event did occur?

Bible.

No science directly can tell us either. So, aside from time travel, how can we determine what went on?

You can't, except for the bible.

As I explained above, read from the people living then, and look at what they did

Let me explain, you have a problem on you hands with that claim! If you haven't figured out why, try and support it!

Ok which specific documents, from any God, who called him/herself the creator, mention a split in the laws of physics around the time of Babel?

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip

(near the end)

 

[dad]

dad, what do you mean by 'good spirit', you follow God right? You are aware that only people that Satan has ever killed where Job's children after God let him in a bet?

Key word, is 'let'. He would kill all men on earth before this post was typed, if he could.

God however has killed millions, repeditly, and is planing on killing over 2 billion more in the Rapture.

???? Now what are you talking about?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not true, the bible says try it, and we will know. I tried it and I know. Not trying it is subjective.

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

Above reproach.

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

Why would physical laws exist as such in a universe where it is not PO?? It has it's own laws.

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

Only as far as SCIENCE is concerned, and that isn't very far!

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

Why shoud they? Think of heaven, can you apply it there?

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

No. Gabriel appeared to Mary, but is not of this world.

1) Yes.
2) Gabriel did not appear to Mary. Prove me wrong.
3) If Gabriel appeared to Mary, then Gabriel has to be able to interfere with the physical universe. If Gabriel can interfere with the physical universe, then Gabriel is of the physical universe, by definition of the set of objects in the physical universe. If Gabirel is of the physical universe, then Gabriel must abide by the physical laws.
Thus, if Gabriel appear to Mary, then Gabriel must abide by the physical laws.

Yes. Angels and earth women got it on.

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

Apply it in box all you wish, that's what it's there for!

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

Prove that your dictums apply to God, and the spiritual world then?

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

I mean that simple is not always best.

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

Glad you have some repertoire with them, and think you know what they feel.

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

No, you misunderstood! The pre split universe did not have our laws, they have their laws.

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

You were busted.

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

Well, the supernatural is what most people believe in, so saying that is not just the natural is common sense.

Most children also believe in Santa.

Because we don't have to hide our heads in the sand and ignore the spiritual known quantity.

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

Because we don't have to toss out the bible, and God.

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

Because it fits the evidence we do have.

According to you, we have no evidence.

because it makes sense, more than squishing up the whole universe and stuffing it in a can, and assuming we came from a worm.

Counter-intuitiveness does not imply disproof.

Well, sounded like you felt it was so bad it would be better not existing.

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

He did, they left it.

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

Life is in the living, not in some induced state of so called well being, in a mindless, zombie who never loved, and lived, and learned.

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

The devil seems to wonder the same thing. So great is the gift, like eternal life, it boggles the mind.

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

Ha. Well, sounds a little vague. But, if God makes exceptions here and there, why not?

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

Hey, I already whacked a couple of those bible doubts you raised..

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

Well, depends on the list.

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

I don't agree. Actions and reactions indicate a law at work.

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

A law indicates a LawMaker.

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

Comes with the territory. Our parents rub off somewhat on us. Sometimes that can be serious. Foe example, I one was a crystal meth user, and had a lab in one's house. The child could be exposed to maybe, mold, or maybe chemicals, or something bad. Also, if his parents got busted, the child could have a tougher road to walk. Maybe the child gets older, and takes drugs like his parents, that can lead to death, or frying out the mind, or a life of protitution, etc etc.

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

Sure I can, everywhere it applies! That would be in box.

The scientific method is based on logic. Logic permeates beyond your 'in box' constraints. It is empiricism that is bound to the physical universe. However, since there is no evidence for your 'non-physical' universe, empiricism effectively works everywhere.

You seem to include 'nothing' as well!

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

They should be treated as such.

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

Pointing out dreaming is on track, when dreams are all you have for the past.

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

You cannot prove otherwise, and can't claim it is empiricism.

I cannot refute your claim because you refute empiricism. There is nothing more I can do, so I will end this particular line of inquiry.

Yes, in what way is there a pont that is applicible in your formulas, etc you posted?

As mentioned elsewhere in our dialogue, logic permeates in all things, even any 'non-phyiscal' universe you would care to invoke. I used the Law of Identity, A=A, as an example of this. A=A for all A. Since you have not shown me how the a non-physical universe would not have such a law, my claim holds.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

he year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (‘About the heavens&#8217 by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.2"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/i1/peleg.asp



This means that it was maybe three years after the split (rough estimation).

let me summarize

2234BC founding of Babylon

which is 3 years after split

The earliest mention of Babylon is in a dated tablet of the reign of Sargon of Akkad (24th century BC short chr.).

This is around 100 years before the date you mention, or a lot before the split

The origins of Western astronomy can be found in Mesopotamia, the "land between the rivers" Tigris and Euphrates, where the ancient kingdoms of Sumer, Assyria, and Babylonia were located. A form of writing known as cuneiform emerged among the Sumerians around 3500-3000 BC. The Sumerians only practiced a basic form of astronomy, but they had an important influence on the sophisticated astronomy of the Babylonians. Astral theology, which gave planetary gods an important role in Mesopotamian mythology and religion, began with the Sumerians.

The Sumerians had a form of astrology which influenced the Babylonians and according to you, just before the founding of Babylon was the split

This is an impossibility, since if the fundamental laws of physics changed, the Babylonians would have to reinvent astronomy, instead of relying on the vast research left by the Sumerians




http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/index.html

Here you can for yourself read the early writing of the Sumerians, (the enuma elish is Babylonian)





Ok, so I have used historical data on astronomy, and provided resource for Sumerian writings, of people who lived at the time

And you use the Bible?

The early writings in the OT are copied from the early Sumerian ones

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

Here, the Story of the flood, actually the 11th tablet in the Epic of Gilgamesh



My original question was what empirical data do you posses, to back yourself up. This has been left unanswered.

The other one was, which God has writings that describe a split in the spiritual/physical

You give me a pdf by Enjay B Davidavitch

It begins with a few qotes from revelations, a prophetic thing, nothing to do with the past, and should be ignored

A few Genesis and early OT quotes, each and every single one taken out of context,

You use fragments, of single quotes to piece together a theory and say that it is either empirical evidence or fact? There is nowhere in the OT, where it is clearly said that a split occurred between the spiritual and physical,

All there is a theory based on quotes popping up randomly across the psalms, and Gen. , that are used to back up a split, all this based on the idea that because it is scientifically impossible in this universe now, it should have been back then, because it is written in this book. Completely ignoring metaphors and allegory, completely ignoring historical data, this theory does not rest on either fact, or empirical data, or even on a holy script

 

[dad]

let me summarize

2234BC founding of Babylon

which is 3 years after split

OK.

This is around 100 years before the date you mention, or a lot before the split

It is wrong.
"
The Assyrian king list is not merely a list of kings of Assyria, but is a very specific ancient list of supposed Assyrian kings recorded in several ancient locations, and related to the Sumerian king list.
The earliest extant copies date to the early first millennium BCE.
The first twelve named listed are identical to names in Hammurabi's genealogy. For this reason, some scholars regard them as suspect in terms of historical accuracy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_King_List

The oldest source was the Sumerian King List.
"The list peculiarly blends from ante-diluvian, mythological kings with exceptionally long reigns, into more plausibly historical dynasties"
So, here we have a pre flood list with long lifespans blended in!!!!
Now let's look at the first king here, I would think even using this as a source would be an embarassment!
" Enmebaragesi (Me-Baragesi, En-Men-Barage-Si, Enmebaragisi, fl. ca. 2600 BC), according to the Sumerian king list, was a king of Kish who subdued Elam and reigned 900 years,..." ????? Give us a break!
Here is what the article admits
"However, the presence in the list of dynasties which plausibly reigned simultaneously, but in different cities, makes it impossible to trust the addition of the figures to produce a strict chronology"

Now, get serious!

Here is a sample taste of a king list, from the same page!

"After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish."

[edit] First Dynasty of Kish

• Jushur of Kish: 1200 years
• Kullassina-bel of Kish: 960 years
• Nangishlishma of Kish: 670 years
• En-Tarah-Ana of Kish: 420 years
• Babum of Kish: 300 years
• Puannum of Kish: 840 years
• Kalibum of Kish: 960 years
• Kalumum of Kish: 840 years
• Zuqaqip of Kish: 900 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list#Description
Yeah riiight.

The Sumerians had a form of astrology which influenced the Babylonians and according to you, just before the founding of Babylon was the split

Excuse me? Can you give us a star map then, so we can compare???

This is an impossibility, since if the fundamental laws of physics changed, the Babylonians would have to reinvent astronomy, instead of relying on the vast research left by the Sumerians

Vast research, indeed! What a farce. How about a star map? Or is silly pretend lifespans of supposed kings all you have?
I think, all the nonsense aside, about the only thing I can salvage out of the Sumerian mess, is that they were post flood!
The dates are wrong.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/index.html

Here you can for yourself read the early writing of the Sumerians, (the enuma elish is Babylonian)

I looked at it, and could find nothing relative, or interesting.

Ok, so I have used historical data on astronomy, and provided resource for Sumerian writings, of people who lived at the time

You have shown us nothing about the ancient sky at all. You have relied of fables of things that cannot be trusted, and yet you base your dates on records that have a king ruling for 12 centuries?

And you use the Bible?

Not much point with you. Better to force you to admit you simply don't know ahat you are talking about, and leave it at that.

The early writings in the OT are copied from the early Sumerian ones

Lie.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

Here, the Story of the flood, actually the 11th tablet in the Epic of Gilgamesh

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

My original question was what empirical data do you posses, to back yourself up. This has been left unanswered.

Can't think of any data that opposes it.

The other one was, which God has writings that describe a split in the spiritual/physical

The Living God.

A few Genesis and early OT quotes, each and every single one taken out of context,

You think you have a grasp of bible context? Where is it hiding?

You use fragments, of single quotes to piece together a theory and say that it is either empirical evidence or fact? There is nowhere in the OT, where it is clearly said that a split occurred between the spiritual and physical,

The bible is full of things about a different past and future. Any time you want to prove the flood, Eden, and heaven are just the same as today, you go right ahead.

All there is a theory based on quotes popping up randomly across the psalms, and Gen. , that are used to back up a split, all this based on the idea that because it is scientifically impossible in this universe now, it should have been back then, because it is written in this book.

It isn't that they are random, it is that they spand the bible, which agrees cover to cover that the past and future are different.You have nothing to say about it!

Completely ignoring metaphors and allegory,

Says you, whatever that is suposed to mean.

completely ignoring historical data,

Like a silly silly so called king list that claims reigns that span 1200 years!!!!!!??? And you want to use that for dating???
The bible has long lifespans, but they are arranged properly, and orderly, and the father son relation is uded, so it is good for actual dates. God's people had good records!

this theory does not rest on either fact, or empirical data, or even on a holy script

It rests on all the bible. It agrees with all evidence. The king list dates is in no way dating evidence.