So it was not humanity that caused the change then? Humanity is hardly able to change the entire nature of the universe.
No, of course not, it was God, but it was because of, and for us.
Another ad hoc. You claim that the entire universe, down to it's fundamental workings, was changed just to accomodate one particular species of organism on one particular planet in one particular solar system, galaxy, cluster, supercluster, etc.
That is absolutely correct, and exactly how important and central man actually is! The stars shine for us!
Is it not more simple, and therefore more probable, that this change simply did not occur?
No, then you get into explaining how there is no spiritual, most of the world is nuts, and then jamming all planets, and trillions of galaxies into less than a grain of sand, and the mess that supposedly ensues from there!
How so? You claim that no physical laws existed before this 'split':
Right, the laws were ones that governed merged matter, that is, spiritual, and physical, together.
It is the physical laws that keep quarks together to form nucleons, nucleons together to form nuclei, electrons orbiting nuclei, molecules coherant. Because of these phenomena, we have matter.
PO universe quarks, and electrons. They operate here.
Without the physical laws, nothing can interact. How could 'New Jerusalem' exist if there are no laws to hold it together?
There are laws, of course. They simply are not temporary physical only universe laws. Since these heavens will pass away, the new ones, and the new spiritual also mass has it's laws. Eternal, true nature laws, I might add!
An analogy: the only reason you cannot put your fist through a table without breaking it is because the protons in your hand repel the protons in the table. If there were no physical laws, you could do this, since electrostatic repulsion would no longer exist (but then neither would a table, or your fist).
But merged matter can go theough PO mass! Look at Jesus appearing and disappearing and coming into locked rooms, etc.
Mass is a fundamental quantum number exhibited by all particles in the universe (although some have a mass of 0). It doesn't come in 'flavours' (PO or otherwise).
You miss the forest for the trees there! The universe is PO! Therfore the q numbers, are actually, POQ numbers!
Occam developed a fundamental concept that is today applied to the scientific method. Occam himself is irrelevant; it is his attributed concept that we are interested in.
I know,
'We stole it, and paganized it fair and square, we don't care what he has to say'!
You cannot dismis something merely because it's author dislikes it or it's implications. Indeed, Darwin himself said that his conclusions were like commiting the most atrocious of murders (please, do not take this out of context).
Aha! I agree with him there.
I love this. Science insults intelligence, but not you. You admit freely that you are unintelligent?
So called science that bandies about making false claims of the past and future, with no clue, and no proof, and with insulting insane conclusions! Actual science is my buddy.
For the final time, there is nothing Pagan about it. Some Pagans may accept something, but this does not make it Pagan.
Well it sure isn't monkish.
No. Natural origins are more likely that supernatural ones.
Quite a declaration from someone that recently said something about worshipping, 'the horned one', was it?
What? I said that the physical laws govern all interactions in the universe. I never mentioned anything about something that does not need governing. Indeed, by definition of the physical laws, all things are governed by them.
OK, then let's review here. PO universe has it's laws, and the eternal, spiritual and physical universe coming has it's laws. Still with me there so far?
I never said you did. I said you claim that there was a change in the physical laws.
I don't! The eternal, natural, created original universe had the cahnge, and we are what was left here. The physical only part.
No. Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase 'a priori'? Try not to copy-and-paste straight from a dictionary.
I used it like you did.
No. Evidence that disproves the claim that the Bible is a literally true set of documents:
1) If any statement in the Bible is shown to the false or contradictory, then the Bible cannot be a literally true document.
Hit us with your best shot, and let's see.
2) Psalm 26:4 and Psalm 26:5 directly contradict each other ('Answer not a fool according to his folly' and 'Answer a fool according to his folly' respectively)
3) Therefore, the Bible cannot be a literally true document.
When I first got saved, someone showed me a book called something like, 'Satanic Bible'. It was when I was telling him about God. It was a whole collection of sort of doubts, and supposed contradictions etc from the bible. I remember only the one page that was open, and the veres he pointed out. It was, funny enough, these very verses.
As a new Christian, I almost kinda was a bit shaken. 'Gee, is the bible really so wrong, they have a whole educated looking book of how wrong it is? I wondered.
But I soon realized that it was a gross and sick effort, inspired to try to cast doubt on God's word.
When one does get saved, we are born again, and start to see the world as a newborn baby, with our new spiritual eyes. It is then we can start to grow in the spirit, and begin to understand.
I could see how those who haven't done that can be tripped up, and really not understand what the bible is really saying! When we look at those verses in the spirit, it is apparent they are not at all contradictory. Not like God made some mistake, and then stuck the verses right there together, like a nitwit, to get caught!
There is a time for everything, and in some situations we can answer a fool according to his folly. Most times, however, we should try to avoid that. If we always run around snipping titi for tati at every fool we meet, we do become like one ourselves. ..So, we need to understand, and have God's understanding, and spirit, to really catch the spirit of what is really being said.
Otherwise, it is like a locked safe, and we won't have the key. It largely will be hid from us. Like it's coded. You need to get saved to have the code!
Logic, my dear Watson, is irrefutable.
Thanks.
And you have no evidence that there is anything other than the observable universe. How logical is it to invoke this whole other realm of spirituality and mysticism without any evidence whatsoever?
I have plenty of evidences as have billions before me, and hundreds of millions as we speak! Not the kind of evidence silly, limited, unperceptive, crude, PO science can deal with, of course. But real evidences.
Logically, we should disbelieve a claim until supporting evidence or rational reasoning can be given.
Logically we should not expect the universe to fit in a lab, or a speck!
Basically, if the people disagree, then they will be cursed and, quite frankly, have their faces shoved in [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].
Sadistic, mon ami.
The dung was their empty, cold, repetitive, useless, phoney religious rigamarole, as the bible clearly indicated. Just as He called self righteousness as 'filthy menstous rags'.
Thinking God actually was going to fly down to earth, with a handful of poopy is so ludicrous, and impishly absurd, one ought to be ashamed of oneself for seriously entertaing such a notion!
Hah! You run when you cannot rebute. I have to admit, I didn't expect you to give up so quickly.
When you present a bunch of would be champs, lined up at thr ringside, as some mighty army, and I KO the first guy so fast, the ref hardly got to bang the bell, it is not running. It is avoiding boredom, and time wasting.
Eye-witness accounts can serve as supporting evidence, but not sole evidence, since these accounts are easily forged. Hallucinations, incorrect audiovisual recall, even willful delusions, can all create these common fantasies.
Lots of people pay their rent on faith, and eat by it. People use it, rather than doctors, and it permeates man's existance. We have witnessed the dead raised, and blind healed, and deaf, and lame. We have gotten spiritual gifts, and knowledge, that can only come from above. Millions have seen angels, and ghosts, and other spirits. Houdini even heard his mom, and had his life saved from the experience!
To claim almost everyone is looney is adsurd. Of course there ars those that take drugs, and who are nuts, etc. But don't strain at nats, and swallow camels here!
That, my friend, is evidence of a failing education system. The religious right indeed.
What is it that the people in the US can't understand, exactly? No idea what you are talking about. Is it the high percentage of believers?
It is inferred through logic and observation of surviving artifacts. Indeed, modern day speciation is a very strong pointer to a common ancestor.
So called artifacts are inferred and assumed to be such bu evos. They are creations that have survived. Modern day variety of species indicates evolving from the ark.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe.
Stellar evolution does. It is spelled the same, and is godless the same, and baseless the same, etc. If it smells like a rose.......
1) This 'Granny Luca' is pure anti-evolutionist propaganda.
No, Luca is a science term even!
"What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor
(LUCA)?"
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html
Where you been?
2) This 'imaginary pond' is the primordial oceans of the primordial Earth, and there is nothing imaginary about that.
The primordial ooze, or soup, is often refered to as a pond.
" "It is about 140 years since Charles Darwin suggested that life may have begun in a 'warm little pond'. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm
Where you been?
3) This 'imaginary past' is quite well backed up by the entire of Archaeology and Zoology.
Hey, I don't care if the whole zoo agrees with it! Think about it, how backed up can an 'imaginary past' be!?
How is it 'out of whack'? Chaos does not imply imperfection.
How in whck can a PO temporary universe be?
This is not evolution. Creation ex nihilo is an observed phenomenon.
Ha! "Ex nihilo" is Latin for "from nothing." What about nothing do you think you observe creating what? But, I guess, since it is backed up with nothing either, it doesn't matter much!
You see above. I try to.
The assumption that the physical laws are constant is born from recorded observation of these laws that show them to be constant.
Ha! In other word, 'That's all we see, hec'
Again, Occam's Razor points us to the simpler of two theories, so we stick to this assumption. It may be false, but this is highly unlikely.
So you want to use the monk for an excuse to lean on something you admit may be false. I see. Don't know why you need to blame the monk there.
You have claims, but not of discovery.
Well, I discovered some secrets of the universe, that it is temporary, as the bible says. That is something.
You misunderstand yet again. Occam's Razor says that, all things being equal, the simpler theory is to be preferred. This is a result of logic and rationality, something a child rarely possesses.
So a child is irational, ilogical, and unable to pick the simpler things? Maybe you ought to stop waving that crazy razor around kids.
