Space was Warm.

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Of course we had people go there, and observe and come back to us with the notes!!!!

Hmm, this is actually interesting, the orthodox church had many of these cases, and they are surprisingly interesting

So you have a modest interest in the church building system, where the system is huge enough. OK.

That, is actually the great majority of Christians, since technically Copts and Armenians, are orthodox, as well as the Greek, Ukrainian and Russian systems, and adding the Catholic and Anglican, we have by far the great majority of all Christians, the system is huge enough, and the majority (excluding Anglicans), agree practically on every issue, and have unofficial agreements on other issues

Who, where, what??

I took , your post to be an insult against the orthodox church, if that is not so, could you please clarify, the miracles part

You first.

Ok,

My question having been,

"Are you saying you have a better/more valid interpretation, than the orthodox, catholic and Anglican churches?"

To answer this q/n myself, no I do not, in fact if theres something I want to know, I ask the orthodox

what about you, what is your answer, now that you have received my own?

You might be more concerned with why you were knocked out of it. That would be because you have no case. I do. Not a science limited case, but a case.

Yes, and i am asking you to present your case in fact and empirical evidence

or admit that your case does not lie on fact and empirical evidence

(please do not turn to me again, I will conclude that I am out of the ring, and now we are examining, what you are doing there, so please answer the question, regarding fact and empirical evidence)

Well, As I said saome feel that way. There are many opinions.

In the context of your theory, the dinosaur eggs, are logical, I admit, however, let us look at the theory as a whole

OK, but they have to believe in the ressurection to be Christian, so don't hold your breath!

I asked my friend, who believes in resurrection, and is a Christian by the apostolic creed, (do not use the no true Scotsman please) , and he said he never even heard of such a theory, and laughed when I asked whether it would be possible (the split)

No one does, or can observe the far past or future. Not with science, at least.

Therefore can we conclude that you are not in the possession of empirical evidence?

(you can count me as out of the ring if you want)

 

[dad]

Hmm, this is actually interesting, the orthodox church had many of these cases, and they are surprisingly interesting

Thanks.

That, is actually the great majority of Christians, since technically Copts and Armenians, are orthodox, as well as the Greek, Ukrainian and Russian systems, and adding the Catholic and Anglican, we have by far the great majority of all Christians, the system is huge enough, and the majority (excluding Anglicans), agree practically on every issue, and have unofficial agreements on other issues

Well, glad it tickles your fancy.

I took , your post to be an insult against the orthodox church, if that is not so, could you please clarify, the miracles part

Well if they believe that Jesus lived, they belive in miracles. If they believe in heaven, they believe in a different state. If they believe in squat, they ought to start, or get out of the business.

Ok,

My question having been,

"Are you saying you have a better/more valid interpretation, than the orthodox, catholic and Anglican churches?"

Depends on what. I don't know much about them. I do know a bit about catholics, having been born one. They believed in the creed thing. So they believe in miracles.

To answer this q/n myself, no I do not, in fact if theres something I want to know, I ask the orthodox

what about you, what is your answer, now that you have received my own?

I'll ask God directly, thank you very much, and look at the bible if I don't get an answer, and even if I did. It has to check out there, or we can consider it is likely wrong.

Yes, and i am asking you to present your case in fact and empirical evidence

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

That covers it pretty good.

or admit that your case does not lie on fact and empirical evidence

I admit the same past has no evidence, and that science can't prove either. My case lies on all the same evidence theirs does. Since that is not enough for either, they have no case. I have a bible case.

(please do not turn to me again, I will conclude that I am out of the ring, and now we are examining, what you are doing there, so please answer the question, regarding fact and empirical evidence)

I just did.

In the context of your theory, the dinosaur eggs, are logical, I admit, however, let us look at the theory as a whole

That isn't my idea at the moment. I lean to the land dinos being extinct, so there were few if any left.

I asked my friend, who believes in resurrection, and is a Christian by the apostolic creed, (do not use the no true Scotsman please) , and he said he never even heard of such a theory, and laughed when I asked whether it would be possible (the split)

I don't expect he would. I was hoping he would have heard of and believed the ressurection, though. That means he believes in more than the physical universe, and laws as constant.

Therefore can we conclude that you are not in the possession of empirical evidence?

I possess all the next guy does, and all that science has. But, as I say that cannot tell us if the state of the universe in the past or future was/will be the same.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You might say that, then I might say, show us the basis.

There are two possible assumptions that can be made: either the physical laws are mutable, or they are not
There is no evidence for the former.
The latter is supported by thousands of years of recorded history that nowhere suggests a change in the physical laws. The latter is also simpler, as it does not invoke an agent of change.
Since the latter has supporting evidence (albiet not conclusive evidence), and is simpler, it is to be logically preferred.

Not a change in box. Not a change in the PO universe, this is the change. What we see is what we got.

You contradict yourself within the same sentence:
Not a change in the PO universe, this is the change.
Continuity errors, anyone?

Perhaps you would like to lay out, clearly and simply, your argument, so as to avoid any confusion.

Because you have no science yo back up a claim as to the state of the past.

Me: Why is my claim unscientific?
You: Because it is unscientific!
You might want to expand on that.

Not cloaked as a claim of science, though, that would be..you.

'Cloaked as a claim of science'? That's a new one.
Perhaps you would like to explain why my claim is unscientific? Try not to answer using the question again (â la, 'Because it's unscientific / Because it has no science!!!??!?!?!!').

No, only falsely so called science.

Please, tell me how my application of science is 'falsely so called' (a lovely phrase devoid of all grammar and syntax)?

The same past claim is an assumption nothing more. It is neither observed or tested.

Noone claims any different.

Your logic comes from nowhere???? Why compare it to math, then, that comes from somewhere!

And where would that be? Mathematics is a product of logic. It does not come from anywhere. It simple is.

Unknown by those who don't want to know.

I'm sorry? You are arrogant enough to tell me what I want and not want? I very much desire to know, else why would I be a scientist! You grow more absurd by the moment.

Well known to us.

You realised this is exactly what I asked you not to do.

The universe doesn't turn to what you or science happens to have the wherewithal to know.

Indeed. However, since we do not know how the universe 'turns', we must make logical assumptions until conclusive evidence is presented.

Because you want to go into the eternal state future, and impose the limitations of the soon to pass away present laws.

That is not how I would put it, but essentially yes. Now, perhaps you can answer my question: why not?

You can no more do that, than Buzz Lightyear can fly to infinity, and beyond. In fact, he can't get out of the box by himself.

You seem to have a rather odd obsession with Toy Story. May I ask your age? I'm questioning whether you've graduated from high school, or whatever you call it over there.

You told us nothing about it.

You never asked. Besides, I quite explicitly stated that it was not your devil.

You never answered if it was called lucifer even.

I'm sorry? I could've sworn I wrote:
...I do not call him Lucifer.
But of course, your Saved™ Christian™ Knowledge™ clearly surpasses my own.

You called it the horned one. What is it, a goat?

No. He is a deity, commonly depicted with horns.

Prove it, where is you empirical evidence?

The depiction of Satan as a horned and hoofed goat-like monster holding a trident is a 19th century invention, probably becoming popular as a response of Christian morality to the growing popularity of the Greek god Pan in the art and literature of the time. Previous depictions of the Devil were much more varied, and he was often simply a man dressed in black, or a dog or goat. When depicted as a composite animal/human figure, the Devil often had bat's wings, the talons of a bird of prey, and so on.
The Horned God does not share Satan's attributes either: while the Christian Satan is described as a fallen angel and is essentially evil, the pagan Horned God is believed to be a force of nature, neither entirely benevolent nor entirely malevolent: In his role as Father, he is said to give life, but in his role as Hunter, he is also said to take life. Positive aspects of the Horned God have more recently been re-attributed to Satan by the Church of Satan and similar branches of modern Satanism.
From Wiki, originally from:
Juliette Wood, "The Celtic Tarot and the Secret Traditions: A Study in Modern Legend Making": Folklore, Vol. 109, 1998
Walter Burkert, Greek Religion 1977 (1985) Cambridge:Harvard University Press)
The Horned God in India and Europe.

In any case, the Christian depiction of the Devil (cloven hooves etc) arose many centuries (c. 500 CE) after the common mythology surrounding the Horned God arose.

The bible does refer to him as a dragon. Many seem to think they had horns.

They have also been seen as aerial, aquatic, fire-breathing, water-breathing, exant, extinct, never-existant, good, evil, human-eating, virgin-eating, vegitarian, omnivorous, etc.

Plus, he was described as having instruments in his body, I think, namely pipes, or, we might say, horns.

Or, perhaps, organ system vessals? Viens, arteries, lymph nodes, draining ducts, etc? Horns are hardly pipes.

Well, apparently he hasn't been heralding God for a long time now. I wouldn't go by that.

You miss the point. My god is unrelated to yours (for arguments sake; we could get into a complex debate about how our two deities are interrelated).

'More the fool them'? Whatever.

I'll assume you had a point here that I somehow missed.

So, your gods taked to you. OK. Are they spiritual??

That depends on how you define 'spiritual'. Since they interefere with the physical universe, they are of the physical universe. Of course, if deities are de dicto spiritual, then they are also spiritual.
I can see where you are going with this. By your definition of 'spiritual' (i.e., non-physical), then no, they are not.

CONTINUED

 

[Wiccan_Child]

CONTINUATION

It is not totally physically literal, I woult think. Although most consider me a literalist, cause I believe almost all of it can ne literal.

What parts do you reject as literally true, and why?

So you figure there isn't much difference in the wotches of old, and today. Fine.

Did you miss my first statement?
[T]he Old English word 'witch' has a different meaning today.

I can't tell you why He does everything, and I doubt you care anyhow.

Please, I come here to learn. Enlighten me.

Oh, it isn't Jesus, or God, or the Holy Spirit piping through them. It is spiritual, though. There are oodles of spirits of all kinds. The bible says to not believe every spirit. Only if they confess Christ. Otherwise, they are evil spirits!

The Bible says a lot of things. Why do you trust it?

Because we have more than just science to go on, we have His word.

Ah, yes, the infallible Bible. Why do you believe it to be the word of your god?

No, only if we are talking in box.

On the contrary, we are talking about scientific validity. Whether your claim is 'PO' or 'non-PO' is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you reject the scientific method.

Assumptions that want to Buzz Lightyear it out of the universe, into infinity and beyond can't be dealt with 'via the scientific method'.

Whyever not?

Only if they are baseless.

Your own arguments are baseless. Why do you not reject them?

Or not.

On the contrary, it is improbable that your 'merged universe' existed, because it invokes an agent of 'unmerging' (your god?). Why accept the improbable over the probable?

If there are no facts, what is your probability based on?

Logic. What else?

To elevate the musings of a monk to the 'highest truth in the universe'. Absurd.

I notice that you still have not answered my question, just expanded on your initial statement. Futher, the monk merely quantified a fundamental logical principle, one that exists with or without him. In honour of this quantification, the concept bears his name: Occam's Razor.

-the monk's idea is the highest law in the universe
(the idea you agreed with)

I'd word it differently, but essentially yes.

To claim it is more important than the afterlife, God, the laws of the spiritual, the bible, and everything that could be conceived, and 'whatever is simplest' is the highest law in the universe has no merit.

Why not? You make all these comparisons to Christian theology (the Bible, the Afterlife, the Biblical god, etc), as if it is supposed to mean something. Are you trying to imply that your beliefs should not be subservient?

Who wrote that commandment?? You?

Noone wrote it, just as noone wrote that A=A for any given A.

Then you now admit that the evo group of complicated ever changing origins theories is not simple!

'Simple' is an adjective, and adjectives are comparisons. Compared to Creationism, it is phenominally more simple, explanation for explanation. Unfortunately for Creationism, Evolution goes into far more depth. This is why it appears complex.

My point exactly. Remember Occam's razor! My ideas are!

Your ideas are baseless ad hoc arguments designed to save your failing beliefs.

Never heard of him!!!!!!

Somehow that does not surprise me.

Hey, I could even teach the average 50 year old over dinner! Now that is simple.

Saying 'goddidit' is like me saying 'mutation did it'. Trust me, mutation is far easier to grasp than the concept of deity. The Theory of Evolution is vaster than your Creationism because it goes far beyond 'mutation did it'. Can you explain how goddidit? Can you explain why goddidit? To the extent that Evolution goes?

Form a complete thought first. Then I might demonstrate something.

Ah, yes, because my mental age is somehow inferior to yours.
Me: Certain assumptions must be made. It is logical, intuitive, and above all probable to assume a 'same past'.
You: They are not any of that.
Me: Then demonstrate as such.

Where, exactly, did I fail to make a complete thought? It seems to me that my request is simplicity incarnate.

And that is why it is not science.

An assumption is without evidence by definition. An assumption is not unscientific by definition, it is unscientific if it fails the scientific method. Try to get your head round these terms. Scientific definitions are something you seem to be poorly missing.

That depends. Which one? Chances are, though, if it was my assumption, I would accept it.

So you reject this 'same past' assumption because it is not yours?

You name it, fossil record,

Supports a consistent, old Earth.

population numbers since the flood,

There was no flood, not on a global scale at least.

history,

All recorded history implies constant physical laws.

cosmological info,

The position of today's celestial phenomena was accurately predicted tens of thousands of years ago. I.e., constant physical laws.

atomic,

Atomic? Elaborate.

How is it they retain God in their knowledge?

I'm sorry? How is this relevant, or indeed sensicle?

Are you suggesting it is moral to have nukes, and etc??

Nuclear weaponry was commissioned seperately by the US and German governments in WW2 following Einstien's breakthroughs in quantum mechanics. Scientific progress is not driven towards creating weapons of mass destruction, it is driven by a desire to explain the facts, and validate said explainations.
Besides, it is one of the oldest fallacies:
1) B is caused by A
2) B is bad
3) Therefore, A is also bad

Just try regulating genetical research, or something, and find out.

Genetics is very strictly regulated. Your point?

Anything in box is real.

And anything outside your box is not real. Gotcha.

If it deals with facts, and actual tests, and real observing, etc. We can evidence how to build a brifge, or spaceship. We can observe gravity working right now. We know about magnetism. Etc.

So you would do away with logical deduction and inferrence? You would dismiss all theology, philosophy, subjectivity, irrationality, emotion, abstractation, art, culture, music, literature, etc?

No, I read the bible a bit occasionally, and see more than the laws of physics at play in the future fields of the Lord! Saying you have science against that is insanity.

So you read a book now and then, and you become convinced that it trumps all logic and reason? Tell me, is there any objective reason to believe the Bible?

Try slapping your desk. .......

........

.... -- Ok, did your hand go through it? No. There are limits.

No, there is electrostatic repulsion causing action potential in certain neural receptors. The limits you initially were referring to was the limits of logic and logical deduction & inferrance. These are different.

We know some of the limits of the physical. For example we can't go into the future or far past.

Says who? We are constantly travelling into the future, and away from the past.

Not the degree we are talking about in claims of false science, that the sun will burn out!

What is wrong with the theory that the Sun will bloom into a Red Giant as it nears the end of it's lifespan (I assume you mean this when you say 'burn out')?

True. But there are clear limits there.

Such as?

True, but not scientifically so, so that it can be repeated.

Repeatability merely means that, given the same conditions posited by the theory, the same data will be generated. Besides, my statement was a definition, not an argument.

Here we go with that reality questioning again.

You seem afraid to question things you fundamentally assume. Why?

Get a grip, man.

Please. Start shaving before you talk like this.

You said

I do not worry. I merely accept that my sensory input may be being manipulated. I assume it is not, but I do not know that it is not.

So I refered to the movie, the Matrix, where they went to ask the 'oracle'.

How is this pertinent? Can you not understand the point I am making? Or perhaps it is recess?

Yes, He gives us a sound mind, and makes Himself known.

Does he? Or perhaps you get a simple rush of seratonine? Perhaps if is the devil tricking you. Perhaps it is me! You do not know. Once you understand the limitations of human knowledge and conception, return to this point.

Him, us, and me.

You realise that this does not make him perfect, yes?

True. I like to critisize that pipe dream.

Pipe dream? Ah, yes, you have 'divine knowledge'. How could I forget. ¬¬

It explains things, it meets all evidence,

What does it explain? Your assumption rejects empiricism and denies objectivity.

and it meets God and the bible, and the known spiritual factor.

Again with this 'known spiritual factor'. What on Earth is this?

It is the simplest one!!!!

On the contrary, your assumption invokes an agent of change, mine does not. The consistent is the simplist since it has no entities, whereas change requires something to do the changing.

Take it or leave it. Try it, if you like, or not. I don't have to make excuses for God. He can take good care of Himself!

So you don't know. Fair enough. Faith is as faith is, I suppose.

Got any in a test tube?

Love is not a physical quantity. So no.

Where is there a love course we can take in science????

I believe it is a submodule of most sociology and psychology courses.

How is love science, now????

Because the phenomenon of love is scientifically understood. The abstract concept of love is merely that: an abstract concept.

Objection, PO opinion.

Ah yes, you like to believe that your god is love. Care to explain how this works?

 

[Prince Lucianus]

I'll rep you for the effort.

I hope it will be worth it.

Lucy

 

[Nathan Poe]

Only a different natural explains the differences in a rational way.

Talking snakes, magical trees, flying sapphire thrones. Don't go rational on us now, dad. You'll lose your entertainment value.

No, it is all on my side.

And yet, when asked for a single example, you never once manage to come up with the goods.

I don't know it all. I know a lot more than science can tell us though. Anytime you think you're up to a bible challenge, rather than the usual zero you come up with, step right up. Your offering was ! Cor, where it says we will one day know clearly what we just see through a glass darkly now. Face to face, with God, in other words. You twisted it to try to justify backsliding.

And you weren't able to refute me. You actually strengthened my case. Thanks!

No, as your lack of a counter bible case proves.

A counter case for what? "The Split"?

It isn't sipposed to, the present will not be here long.

So... now you're claiming that you don't have evidence, because you don't need any. Do you even keep track of your own gibberish?

 

[dad]

There are two possible assumptions that can be made: either the physical laws are mutable, or they are not
There is no evidence for the former.

Or the latter, and there is tons of evidence for the former, just not science.

The latter is supported by thousands of years of recorded history that nowhere suggests a change in the physical laws.

It never changed in that time, why should there? (The dates are wrong, ad radio carbon based. If you want to bring up the spook ings that lived 1200 years in the king lists, and such, go ahead, it woun't help your case)
The bible goes beyond that, to where it was different.

The latter is also simpler, as it does not invoke an agent of change.
Since the latter has supporting evidence (albiet not conclusive evidence), and is simpler, it is to be logically preferred.

I already explained the split was before all recorded history except the bible. (Doesn't matter how old our oldest copy of the bible, is, it reflects the record of antiquity before that time)

You contradict yourself within the same sentence:
Not a change in the PO universe, this is the change.
Continuity errors, anyone?

Right, so this PO did not chane, it came to be as is when seperated from the merged universe. As I said, our state is the cahnge, no changes of concequence since.

Me: Why is my claim unscientific?
You: Because it is unscientific!
You might want to expand on that.

You have no facts, no observations, no evidence or science, or testing for a same past, or a different one. That is not science, it is assumption.

Please, tell me how my application of science is 'falsely so called' (a lovely phrase devoid of all grammar and syntax)?

Because real science is observed, and tested, and repeated, and deals in some solid basis, other than assumption alone. Assumption is fine in the box, cause it applies and we can observe it. It is not fine to infinity, and beyond!

And where would that be? Mathematics is a product of logic. It does not come from anywhere. It simple is.

How do you know? Maybe God taught Adam to count his fingers and toes????

I'm sorry? You are arrogant enough to tell me what I want and not want? I very much desire to know, else why would I be a scientist! You grow more absurd by the moment.

You have said you don't want the bible, or God. Therefore you cannot know. You could repent and have God if you wanted. You don't want, so you can't know. Simple logic.

Indeed. However, since we do not know how the universe 'turns', we must make logical assumptions until conclusive evidence is presented.

And they must be treated as such, not cloaked as science.

That is not how I would put it, but essentially yes. Now, perhaps you can answer my question: why not?

You can't travel to infinity, and beyond, because you can't even fly out of the box a few feet.

You seem to have a rather odd obsession with Toy Story. May I ask your age? I'm questioning whether you've graduated from high school, or whatever you call it over there.

No. I don't do personal.

You never asked. Besides, I quite explicitly stated that it was not your devil.

That is what you think. Fine. We'll have to take your word for it.

I'm sorry? I could've sworn I wrote:
...I do not call him Lucifer.
But of course, your Saved™ Christian™ Knowledge™ clearly surpasses my own.

Was he ever called that?

No. He is a deity, commonly depicted with horns.

So, that is spiritual, then?

The depiction of Satan as a horned and hoofed goat-like monster holding a trident is a 19th century invention, probably becoming popular as a response of Christian morality to the growing popularity of the Greek god Pan in the art and literature of the time.

Pan is real. It is a bad spirit.

In any case, the Christian depiction of the Devil (cloven hooves etc) arose many centuries (c. 500 CE) after the common mythology surrounding the Horned God arose.

OK, fine, you don't knowingly worship the devil. Nuff said.

Or, perhaps, organ system vessals? Viens, arteries, lymph nodes, draining ducts, etc? Horns are hardly pipes.

Kinda have some pipes in them.

You miss the point. My god is unrelated to yours (for arguments sake; we could get into a complex debate about how our two deities are interrelated).

Everything is related in the spirit world. If it isn't of God, it's of the devil! Including yours, it has to be of one or the other. Don't think we need Sherlock Holmes here.

I'll assume you had a point here that I somehow missed.

I'll make the same assumption.

That depends on how you define 'spiritual'. Since they interefere with the physical universe, they are of the physical universe. Of course, if deities are de dicto spiritual, then they are also spiritual.

So, they are spiritual, then. OK.

I can see where you are going with this. By your definition of 'spiritual' (i.e., non-physical), then no, they are not.

Oh, so now they are not. I see. So you worship some 'deity' that is not a spirit. What does that leave? Man? Idol? ...??

 

[dad]

What parts do you reject as literally true, and why?

The flood, and garden, and creation, heaven, etc, are literal. Some things, like a seven headed beast, are true, but spiritual, and not literal in a PO realm.

Did you miss my first statement?
[T]he Old English word 'witch' has a different meaning today.

Sounds the same.

Please, I come here to learn. Enlighten me.

The post doesn't form a complete thought ,and the poriginal questions are not on this page. Maybe you could have phrased it something like, 'OK, so why did God need a split' or some such. That would be easy to reply to.

The Bible says a lot of things. Why do you trust it?

I tried Jesus, He worked. I then checked out the bible, and the prophesies are astounding, nothing like them on earth anywhere. Then there is the inspirational stuff, tips on life, secrets of the universe, and such as well.

On the contrary, we are talking about scientific validity. Whether your claim is 'PO' or 'non-PO' is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you reject the scientific method.

No, it is the crux of the matter. If you are talking in box, you science is fine. If you are talking spiritual, past, future, then your science is useless.

Your own arguments are baseless. Why do you not reject them?

Selsom has so well supported an idea entered into the world of men. It agrees with science and evidence we do have, the known spiritual, and the bible as well!

On the contrary, it is improbable that your 'merged universe' existed, because it invokes an agent of 'unmerging' (your god?). Why accept the improbable over the probable?

I don't know if you rean remerging. If so, yes, the merge is coming fairly soon!!! We are on the verge of the merge!!!!!

I notice that you still have not answered my question, just expanded on your initial statement. Futher, the monk merely quantified a fundamental logical principle, one that exists with or without him. In honour of this quantification, the concept bears his name: Occam's Razor.

Maybe God's wisdom tuned him in to something there. Let's give credit where credit is due. He was a Christian monk, whose ideas you want to support bunk.

I'd word it differently, but essentially yes.

OK.

Why not? You make all these comparisons to Christian theology (the Bible, the Afterlife, the Biblical god, etc), as if it is supposed to mean something. Are you trying to imply that your beliefs should not be subservient?

To what? They rock, and they're cool, and forever, soon, they will rule.

Noone wrote it, just as noone wrote that A=A for any given A.

OK, so it was written by no one. Funny you should quote it.

'Simple' is an adjective, and adjectives are comparisons. Compared to Creationism, it is phenominally more simple, explanation for explanation. Unfortunately for Creationism, Evolution goes into far more depth. This is why it appears complex.

Right, me and Occam rule.

Your ideas are baseless ad hoc arguments designed to save your failing beliefs.

No, my ideas, unlike your same past ones, are not baseless, but incredibly well supported. My beliefs can't fail, like your tale.

Saying 'goddidit' is like me saying 'mutation did it'. Trust me, mutation is far easier to grasp than the concept of deity. The Theory of Evolution is vaster than your Creationism because it goes far beyond 'mutation did it'. Can you explain how goddidit? Can you explain why goddidit? To the extent that Evolution goes?

Depends on what you mean. Did what? -Created the universe? Well, we have some clues, yes. He created space, and the earth. Later, He made the sun, moon, and stars.

Ah, yes, because my mental age is somehow inferior to yours.
Me: Certain assumptions must be made. It is logical, intuitive, and above all probable to assume a 'same past'.
You: They are not any of that.
Me: Then demonstrate as such.

Unless you demonstrate they were to begin with, why hunt a dead duck??

Where, exactly, did I fail to make a complete thought? It seems to me that my request is simplicity incarnate.

If a post says something like, 'how do you know that'? Or, say what I think you said, or meant the first time', or some such phrase, or group of phrases, it can't stand on it's own as a complete thought. Sometimes you have posts like that, that I don't want to hund down, and spend a lot of time on.

An assumption is without evidence by definition.

Amen! That is one reason it isn't science on it's own.

An assumption is not unscientific by definition, it is unscientific if it fails the scientific method. Try to get your head round these terms. Scientific definitions are something you seem to be poorly missing.

In box assumptions are past of science. Outside the box, they can't fly on their own!

So you reject this 'same past' assumption because it is not yours?

It is not supported either with science or the bible.

Supports a consistent, old Earth.

Also, a pre split young earth.

There was no flood, not on a global scale at least.

Was to.

All recorded history implies constant physical laws.

The change was before recorded history.

The position of today's celestial phenomena was accurately predicted tens of thousands of years ago. I.e., constant physical laws.

No. Your dates are very wrong. Look into it!

Atomic? Elaborate.

Having to do with atoms.

I'm sorry? How is this relevant, or indeed sensicle?

If they do not include God in theor knowledge I find it paganistic.

Nuclear weaponry was commissioned seperately by the US and German governments in WW2 following Einstien's breakthroughs in quantum mechanics. Scientific progress is not driven towards creating weapons of mass destruction, it is driven by a desire to explain the facts, and validate said explainations.
Besides, it is one of the oldest fallacies:
1) B is caused by A
2) B is bad
3) Therefore, A is also bad

B helps A to blow up all life on earth. So A and B have to be stopped. Simple. And how good can that A B team be, trying to kill us all?

Genetics is very strictly regulated. Your point?

I find it monsterous. Plus, a lot of stuff goes on in countries it is not so regulated, or in the closet.

And anything outside your box is not real. Gotcha.

The box is the physical universe. If you have something to present from out of there, do show us.

So you would do away with logical deduction and inferrence? You would dismiss all theology, philosophy, subjectivity, irrationality, emotion, abstractation, art, culture, music, literature, etc?

Hey, just cause you logic can't fly off to infinity and beyond, don't try and spoil the fun we have in the box. Music is good, or can be. Etc.

So you read a book now and then, and you become convinced that it trumps all logic and reason? Tell me, is there any objective reason to believe the Bible?

It is personal. Try it, and you might understand, don't and you look from afar, with PO eyes.

No, there is electrostatic repulsion causing action potential in certain neural receptors. The limits you initially were referring to was the limits of logic and logical deduction & inferrance. These are different.

What does this have to do with the deak, and the hand not being able to go through it? The point is they are physical.

Says who? We are constantly travelling into the future, and away from the past.

Not that fast we smash out of the box.

What is wrong with the theory that the Sun will bloom into a Red Giant as it nears the end of it's lifespan (I assume you mean this when you say 'burn out')?

The sun will never burn out or have an end to it's lifespan. You are basing that on the present state, and assuming the future will be the same. No can do.

Such as?

The limits of the box are the limits of the PO universe.

Repeatability merely means that, given the same conditions posited by the theory, the same data will be generated. Besides, my statement was a definition, not an argument.

No science theory can have spirits reappear repeatedly.

You seem afraid to question things you fundamentally assume. Why?

Having a sound mind, and confidence in reality is nnot fearing a weak grasp on reality, it is having one.

Please. Start shaving before you talk like this.

How is this pertinent? Can you not understand the point I am making? Or perhaps it is recess?

When you say this
I do not worry. I merely accept that my sensory input may be being manipulated. I assume it is not, but I do not know that it is not.

And refer to the matrix, and you can't see the relation, maybe it is best dropped.

Does he? Or perhaps you get a simple rush of seratonine? Perhaps if is the devil tricking you. Perhaps it is me! You do not know. Once you understand the limitations of human knowledge and conception, return to this point.

Yes, He does give us a sound mind. Perhaps the concept is a bit foreign to you.

You realise that this does not make him perfect, yes?

No.

Pipe dream? Ah, yes, you have 'divine knowledge'. How could I forget. ¬¬

All of us do who read the bible, in a believing way.

What does it explain? Your assumption rejects empiricism and denies objectivity.

"Taking an objective approach to an issue means having due regard for the known valid evidence "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_approach
No, it limits observations you make, and your abilty to call it objective trying to Buzz Lightyear it out of the present natural.

Again with this 'known spiritual factor'. What on Earth is this?

Most know there is a spiritual. This makes it known.

On the contrary, your assumption invokes an agent of change, mine does not.

So, we are still in a singularity, unchanged. We are a hot soup? How did we get here, into the soup? There are so many complicated changes in your idea Occam is laughing at you.

The consistent is the simplist since it has no entities, whereas change requires something to do the changing.

Well, it mat be simple to claim an airplane built it's self, but not good simple. That is bad simple. The universe is bigger and more complicated that that. Occam is frowning.

Love is not a physical quantity. So no.

Then if love is not physical, it is unscientific.

I believe it is a submodule of most sociology and psychology courses.

So?

Because the phenomenon of love is scientifically understood. The abstract concept of love is merely that: an abstract concept.

No, it is not understood by science. You may think it is.

Ah yes, you like to believe that your god is love. Care to explain how this works?

Don't you know what love is? It works like that.

 

[dad]

Talking snakes, magical trees, flying sapphire thrones. Don't go rational on us now, dad. You'll lose your entertainment value.

God's UFO is neat, yes. We will communicate with all cretures, not just snakes. Why would I talk rational with a backsliding troll, who never has had a thing to say???

And yet, when asked for a single example, you never once manage to come up with the goods.

The only example I need is your lack of a case for the lie of the same past. If you want miracles, they are for members only.

And you weren't able to refute me.

I rest my case on 1 Cor 13.

A counter case for what? "The Split"?

Anything biblical, if you want to claim a bible case.

So... now you're claiming that you don't have evidence, because you don't need any. Do you even keep track of your own gibberish?

No, not claiming anything like that. You have no science or bible case.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God's UFO is neat, yes. We will communicate with all cretures, not just snakes. Why would I talk rational with a backsliding troll, who never has had a thing to say???

Ad hom? Why all the anger, dad?

The only example I need is your lack of a case for the lie of the same past. If you want miracles, they are for members only.

So, you still have no evidence.

I rest my case on 1 Cor 13.

You have to make a case before you can rest it, dad.

Anything biblical, if you want to claim a bible case.

In matters of the past or future, I'm not making a Bible case, because the BIble is irrelevent.

No, not claiming anything like that. You have no science or bible case.

Neither do you. All you've don't is make up ideas, and then invent people you claim agree with you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Or the latter, and there is tons of evidence for the former, just not science.

Nonsense. What evidence is there for mutable physical laws?

It never changed in that time, why should there?

It is you you suggest that the physical laws where changed 4000 years ago. Since we have written records of unchanging physical laws predating 4000 years...

The dates are wrong, ad radio carbon based.

Care to expand on why your reject dating methods?

I already explained the split was before all recorded history except the bible.

So the Bible was the only piece of literature? You do realise that language is not something that is 'created'? It is developed over time from basic instincts and sounds to complex grammar, syntax, and writing.

(Doesn't matter how old our oldest copy of the bible, is, it reflects the record of antiquity before that time)

Nonsense. The Bible is less than 2000 years old!

Right, so this PO did not chane, it came to be as is when seperated from the merged universe. As I said, our state is the cahnge, no changes of concequence since.

So what caused this change?

You have no facts, no observations, no evidence or science, or testing for a same past, or a different one.

A lack of observations does not make something unscientific. It is if it fails the scientific method that something becomes unscientific.

Because real science is observed, and tested, and repeated, and deals in some solid basis, other than assumption alone.

This is the image of the layman. Do you expect all scientists to be stuffy old men in tweed? Or perhaps absent-minded old cooks who could pass as Einstien?

Assumption is fine in the box, cause it applies and we can observe it.

On the contrary, an assumption is an unsubstantiated preposition. Logically, we pick the most probable assumptions (why on Earth pick the improbable?).

How do you know? Maybe God taught Adam to count his fingers and toes????

1 + 2 = 3 by nature of addition, equality, and the natural numbers. My friend, read up on set theory and number analysis.

You have said you don't want the bible, or God. Therefore you cannot know. You could repent and have God if you wanted. You don't want, so you can't know. Simple logic.

There is no reason that a desire to be Christian leads to knowledge. Besides, you originally claimed that I did not want to know, not that I couldn't know.

And they must be treated as such,

They are. You are making a big fuss about something long accepted.

not cloaked as science.

'Cloaked as science'? What exactly do you mean by this?

You can't travel to infinity, and beyond, because you can't even fly out of the box a few feet.

Neither can you. So, tell me, why should we assume something is radically different? It is more probable that things are the same, not different. Explain to me why you reject this.

No. I don't do personal.

It would help our debate. Do I treat you as a rational adult, or an ignorant child? You use occasionally fail to use syntax, you do not know simple terms and conventions (you fail to understand what science and assumptions are, for example), you frequently forget what we are talking about, etc.

That is what you think.

And you know any better?

We'll have to take your word for it.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who knows more about my deities than me, just as I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who knows more about your deity than you. The divine is a personal thing, mon ami.

Was he ever called that?

Not by his believers, no.

So, that is spiritual, then?

Again, that depends on your definition of spiritual. By your definition (unphysical), then no, no deity, strictly speaking, is spiritual.

Pan is real. It is a bad spirit.

Why is Pan a bad spirit?

OK, fine, you don't knowingly worship the devil. Nuff said.

Ah, of course, I've been seduced by the Devil into loving the Earth and revering nature! How cunning.

Kinda have some pipes in them.

Kinda don't. It is an imitation saxophone, with imitation pipes. The real pipes are hollow.

If it isn't of God, it's of the devil!

Only according to your theology. Ever considered that it might be worng?

Including yours, it has to be of one or the other. Don't think we need Sherlock Holmes here.

You assume your theology is true, and that mine is false. Care to explain why? Or is it all subjective?

I'll make the same assumption.

I was effectively asking you for the point. Care to give it now?

So, they are spiritual, then. OK.

Wow, you just completely missed the point there, didn't you.

Oh, so now they are not. I see. So you worship some 'deity' that is not a spirit. What does that leave? Man? Idol? ...??

Deity. By your definition of 'spiritual', deities that can interact with humanity are not spiritual. Indeed, your own god and messiah are not spiritual. But by the colloquial definition, deities are de dicto spiritual.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The flood, and garden, and creation, heaven, etc, are literal.

Why do you believe these to be literally true?

Some things, like a seven headed beast, are true, but spiritual, and not literal in a PO realm.

Why is this not true in your 'PO' universe?

Sounds the same.

So do the Greek 'homo' and the Latin 'homo'. One means 'man', and the other means 'same'. I.e., homosexual & homophone both use the 'same' meaning of 'homo', but Homo sapiens sapiens uses the 'man' version.

The post doesn't form a complete thought ,and the poriginal questions are not on this page. Maybe you could have phrased it something like, 'OK, so why did God need a split' or some such. That would be easy to reply to.

So you want me to ask you a question that you can simply extract from your theology? I shall do no such thing. I shall, however, reiterate the questions:
Why does he favors his own?
Why won't get far in understanding the bible without [your god's] spirit?

I tried Jesus, He worked.

And I 'tried' Wicca, and it worked.

I then checked out the bible, and the prophesies are astounding, nothing like them on earth anywhere.

Ever read the Qu'ran? The quatrains of Nostradamus?

Then there is the inspirational stuff, tips on life, secrets of the universe, and such as well.

As in all religions.

If you are talking in box, you science is fine. If you are talking spiritual, past, future, then your science is useless.

Why?

Selsom has so well supported an idea entered into the world of men. It agrees with science and evidence we do have, the known spiritual, and the bible as well!

1) You are the only person to actively reject this 'same past'.
2) There is no scientific reason to accept a 'different past', as you claim above.
3) There is no evidence that supports a 'different past', as you claim.
4) There is no 'known spiritual'.
5) There is nothing in the Bible to support a 'different past'.

I don't know if you rean remerging.

No, I did not. First, just because you god unmerged the merge universe, does not mean he will remerge it. Second, you claim that there was first a merged universe, then an unmerged one; this requires an agent to do the unmerging.

If so, yes, the merge is coming fairly soon!!! We are on the verge of the merge!!!!!

Says who?

Maybe God's wisdom tuned him in to something there.

And maybe it didn't. Pure conjecture.

Let's give credit where credit is due.

We do. That is why he is credited with the discovery that still bears his name.

He was a Christian monk, whose ideas you want to support bunk.

I would use the principle regardless of who discovered it. I don't see how you can object to something merely because it's discoverer might object to it's usage.

To what?

Occam's Razor. Did you forget again?

They rock, and they're cool, and forever, soon, they will rule.

Quite.

OK, so it was written by no one. Funny you should quote it.

Why is it funny? It is ironic that you have trouble accepting creation ex nihilo when you worship a deity that must also have been created ex nihilo.

Right, me and Occam rule.

Actually, Occam's Razor does not apply when comparing the Theory of Evolution to Creationism.

No, my ideas, unlike your same past ones, are not baseless, but incredibly well supported.

I have asked you at least twice in each post to explain this support, this evidence, that you continue to claim you have. Will you now present it?

My beliefs can't fail, like your tale.

Why on Earth not? What if your god came down to Earth and said, 'sorry mate, you're dead wrong'? Would you beliefs then fail?

Depends on what you mean. Did what?

-Created the universe? Well, we have some clues, yes. He created space, and the earth. Later, He made the sun, moon, and stars.[/quote]
No, that is merely what he did, not how he did it. Evolution is what happens, the Theory of Evolution is how it happens.

Unless you demonstrate they were to begin with, why hunt a dead duck??

It is logical because it is simpler than the opposition.
It is probable because it is simpler than the opposition.
Your turn.

If a post says something like, 'how do you know that'? Or, say what I think you said, or meant the first time', or some such phrase, or group of phrases, it can't stand on it's own as a complete thought. Sometimes you have posts like that, that I don't want to hund down, and spend a lot of time on.

Did you mean 'Questions such as 'Why?' and 'How?' are not valid'? If so, you have a really odd way of putting it. And, if you did, then you are wrong; they are valid.

Amen! That is one reason it isn't science on it's own.

No, it is a definition. Science is built on assumptions, and can expand using assumptions. I take it you've never gone through a mathematical proof.

It is not supported either with science or the bible.

Science is built on the assumption of immutable physical laws, and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest your 'different past' scenario.

Also, a pre split young earth.

Is this a rehash of AV1611VET's 'embedded age'?

Was to.

What evidence do you have?

The change was before recorded history.

No, it was not. According to you, the split happened around the time of the flood. Since we have written records predating this, your split could not have happened then.

Having to do with atoms.

Well, yes, I gathered that. However, you claimed atomic (evidence?) supported your claim. I asked for a little more on this.

If they do not include God in theor knowledge I find it paganistic.

That's a rather warped definition. Would 'non-Christian' be a better term, one more clear and less offensive to Pagans, non-Christians, Christians, and scientists?

B helps A to blow up all life on earth. So A and B have to be stopped. Simple. And how good can that A B team be, trying to kill us all?

1) Humans are not capable to directly or indirectly kill all life on the Earth.
2) Only nuclear military scientists helped construct nuclear warheads. Most people, scientists included, are pacifist. Note that it was the US government that sanctioned and detonated the bombs, not the scientists. Does that mean the US government should be stopped?
3) Negative Utilitarianism says that it is morally good to wipe out all life, since suffering is so overwhelmingly prolifent.

I find it monsterous.

Why? What is monsterous about genetics?

Plus, a lot of stuff goes on in countries it is not so regulated, or in the closet.

Care to support these claims?

The box is the physical universe. If you have something to present from out of there, do show us.

I do not believe that this 'box' even exists. It is you you constrain us to this 'split' existance. Care to rationalise this constraint?

It is personal. Try it, and you might understand, don't and you look from afar, with PO eyes.

I used to be Christian. I read the Bible, I went to Church, I even believed in Jesus for a time. But, as time grew on, I realised that the Bible was horrific, Jesus was false, and the Church was barbaric. So I left. Later, I discovered Wicca, and I felt a whole lot better as Wiccan than I ever did as a Christian. Now try to tell me that I should 'try it'.

What does this have to do with the deak, and the hand not being able to go through it? The point is they are physical.

No, your original point was about limits on logic, not on physical forces.

Not that fast we smash out of the box.

You miss the point. How many times is that now?

The sun will never burn out or have an end to it's lifespan. You are basing that on the present state, and assuming the future will be the same.

No, you are basing that on it's present state. I am predicting the future by looking at what happens to the trillions of stars around us. All the ones like our sun expand into Red Giants.

No can do.

You say this, but... why not?

The limits of the box are the limits of the PO universe.

Perhaps. But what makes you think that there should be anything outside the box?

No science theory can have spirits reappear repeatedly.

That is why the spiritual does not exist.

Having a sound mind, and confidence in reality is nnot fearing a weak grasp on reality, it is having one.

It's having a weak grasp on reality?

When you say this
I do not worry. I merely accept that my sensory input may be being manipulated. I assume it is not, but I do not know that it is not.

And refer to the matrix, and you can't see the relation, maybe it is best dropped.

The Matrix trilogy is a good analogy, nothing more. If you are going to resort to arguments from ridicule, then perhaps it is best left.

Yes, He does give us a sound mind.

No, your belief in Jesus gives you a sound mind. How do you know that it is Jesus, not some innanimate neurological system?

Perhaps the concept is a bit foreign to you.

Perhaps uncertainty is foriegn to you, too.

No.

Then you are more arrogant and ignorant than I thought.

All of us do who read the bible, in a believing way.

The same claim could be make about Muslims and the Qu'ran. Your point?

Most know there is a spiritual. This makes it known.

So, we are still in a singularity, unchanged.

No, we are not. A singularity has zero length in all dimensions.

We are a hot soup?

Soup, while nice, is not what we are.

How did we get here, into the soup?

Ex nihilo. The energy used to create the universe is balanced by the potential energies (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, & weak).

There are so many complicated changes in your idea Occam is laughing at you.

Where did your god come from?
Where did the energy to create the universe come from?
Why is a logically inconsistent god true?

Well, it mat be simple to claim an airplane built it's self,

No, it is not. You must make grandose assumptions that must later be subjected to Occam's Razor.

but not good simple. That is bad simple.

Simple is simple is simple. There is not 'good' or 'bad' simple. Of course, there is 'simple that I like' and 'simple that I don't like'.

The universe is bigger and more complicated that that. Occam is frowning.

He frowns on your god, mon ami. Logic rejects divinity until something substantial can be presented. And, if you have any, present it now.

Then if love is not physical, it is unscientific.

I think this calls for another:

So?

I was answering your question. Did you forget?

No, it is not understood by science. You may think it is.

I just explained it to you. Did you forget?

Don't you know what love is? It works like that.

Love is an irrational, if wonderful, feeling. Your god is not wonderful, though he is irrational.

 

[dad]

Why do you believe these to be literally true?

They are obviously meant to be.

Why is this not true in your 'PO' universe?

Because some things are spiritual, and that is a seperate state at the moment. But it is true here, just not literal. In other words, there really is a beast that has seven kingdoms (as the horns are clearly explained as being, point blank, in case you didn't know that). They were, as also clearly explainde, several of the major world powers of history. In other words, the devil has possessed the leaders, basically, and run the world.

So do the Greek 'homo' and the Latin 'homo'. One means 'man', and the other means 'same'. I.e., homosexual & homophone both use the 'same' meaning of 'homo', but Homo sapiens sapiens uses the 'man' version.

Well with Romans and Greeks, I wouldn't be surprised.

So you want me to ask you a question that you can simply extract from your theology? I shall do no such thing. I shall, however, reiterate the questions:
Why does he favors his own?
Why won't get far in understanding the bible without [your god's] spirit?

Because He must protect and care for His Own, or there is no hope for mankind. If not for us, the rest of the world would not be here.

And I 'tried' Wicca, and it worked.

Doesn't seem to have given any more of a path than the dead end of science, when it comes to things beyond the PO.

Ever read the Qu'ran? The quatrains of Nostradamus?

Mickey mouse, cheap imitations and shadows of the real deal. But they are somewhat impressive, even being so far from perfect.

Why?[/QUOTE

] Because science only deals in the present state natural.

1) You are the only person to actively reject this 'same past'.

Nothing there to reject. I just pointed that out.

2) There is no scientific reason to accept a 'different past', as you claim above.

There is no scientific reason to accept a 'different past', as you claim here.

3) There is no evidence that supports a 'different past', as you claim.

There is no evidence that supports a 'different past', as you claim. I have the bible.

4) There is no 'known spiritual'.

If most of the world know of it as we speak, and always has, nothing is more well known!!

5) There is nothing in the Bible to support a 'different past'.

Cover to cover it screams out of a different past and future. Make a bible case if you like, or think you can. Step right into the ring anytime.

No, I did not. First, just because you god unmerged the merge universe, does not mean he will remerge it.

Yes, it says in the bible these heavens shall pass away and new ones come. It is basic, unquestionable bible. Notice no one dares challenge that? That can't.

Second, you claim that there was first a merged universe, then an unmerged one; this requires an agent to do the unmerging.

We have an Agent. Our new gig is booked.

Says who?

God.

And maybe it didn't. Pure conjecture.

Only on your part. All good gifts are from the Father of lights.

We do. That is why he is credited with the discovery that still bears his name.

Right, and remember His God. Keep things in context.

I would use the principle regardless of who discovered it. I don't see how you can object to something merely because it's discoverer might object to it's usage.

It is misapplied, and paganized. You almost worship the silly idea! You claimed, if you recall, it was the highest principle in the UNIVERSE!

Occam's Razor. Did you forget again?

What is this? You chanting the slogan now?

Why is it funny? It is ironic that you have trouble accepting creation ex nihilo when you worship a deity that must also have been created ex nihilo.

No. Only from nothing PO.

Actually, Occam's Razor does not apply when comparing the Theory of Evolution to Creationism.

Selective much? So you chose a one sided razor. OK. Newsflash, it cuts both ways!

I have asked you at least twice in each post to explain this support, this evidence, that you continue to claim you have. Will you now present it?

It is irelevant to you, if you don't accept the spiritual, and God. All you have to realize is that you can't prove the same past or a different one with science. That's the end of the road for you. That's the end of the road for science. It should be taught as such, not misrepresented, and dressed in science clothes, parading around as science. The cross dressing must stop,

Why on Earth not? What if your god came down to Earth and said, 'sorry mate, you're dead wrong'? Would you beliefs then fail?

He did come dowm, remember? He told us they were right.

No, that is merely what he did, not how he did it. Evolution is what happens, the Theory of Evolution is how it happens.

Now, how it happens has no relation science can make to how it happened. That is a fact. A real fact, not a hypothesis.

It is logical because it is simpler than the opposition.
It is probable because it is simpler than the opposition.
Your turn.

Dead ducks may be easier and simpler to catch, but not worth the hunt!

Did you mean 'Questions such as 'Why?' and 'How?' are not valid'? If so, you have a really odd way of putting it. And, if you did, then you are wrong; they are valid.

No, the point there was not that is it wrong to ask why, but that it would be good to know what you ask why about, exactly. Rather than just sticking a "Why?" in a post by it's lonesome.

No, it is a definition. Science is built on assumptions, and can expand using assumptions. I take it you've never gone through a mathematical proof.

It can only expand so far, within the limits of the present natural, that define it.

Science is built on the assumption of immutable physical laws, and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest your 'different past' scenario.

It is indeed built on that assumption, and that is why it is so limited to the present, and always will be, until we nix it.

Is this a rehash of AV1611VET's 'embedded age'?

No, don't think so. I did used to lean to something like that in the days when I leaned on flood geology.

What evidence do you have?

Same evidence you have, and human experience of the spiritual as a real factor, and the bible.

No, it was not. According to you, the split happened around the time of the flood. Since we have written records predating this, your split could not have happened then.

There are no records on earth predating this, the dates are wrong and based on false assumptions. Look into it.

Well, yes, I gathered that. However, you claimed atomic (evidence?) supported your claim. I asked for a little more on this.

Atoms are some of the things affected. How atoms now work is not direct evidence of how they did, or did not work.

That's a rather warped definition. Would 'non-Christian' be a better term, one more clear and less offensive to Pagans, non-Christians, Christians, and scientists?

Well, my preferred term would be antichrist! Not all, or I might guess, even most no Christians are antichrist. Antichrist is a spirit. It hates anything to do with Christ, or God, or His word. The spirit behind so called science is antichrist. The spirit behind a lot of real science is the same. But some can approach lnowledge and evidence, and science from a fair, and godly perspective. It all does not have to be that way. It just happens to ne infested with the antichrist disease at the moment.

1) Humans are not capable to directly or indirectly kill all life on the Earth.

They will be if they are not now, within a few years. But I thought I heard that if they used all the nukes, we would all die?

2) Only nuclear military scientists helped construct nuclear warheads. Most people, scientists included, are pacifist. Note that it was the US government that sanctioned and detonated the bombs, not the scientists. Does that mean the US government should be stopped?

Whoever uses science in this world, we can be sure it will be wickedly used. It comes with the territory.

3) Negative Utilitarianism says that it is morally good to wipe out all life, since suffering is so overwhelmingly prolifent.

We should be more positive.

Why? What is monsterous about genetics?

Many things I read of their wicked tinkering make my skin crawl.

Care to support these claims?

I think that is common knowledge. Like some companies that may not like to, say have a mine in some rich country with too many regulations. They might go to South America or some place, with far less regulations, and do business there. Same principle.

I do not believe that this 'box' even exists. It is you you constrain us to this 'split' existance. Care to rationalise this constraint?

The box is the universe we live in. Science is the study of the natural universe. The only way it is not constrained is if this is all there ever was and will be. You cannot speak to that. At best, all you can say is that you don't realize you are limited.
I am not limited, but free of the shackles of the mere physical only.

I used to be Christian. I read the Bible, I went to Church, I even believed in Jesus for a time. But, as time grew on, I realised that the Bible was horrific, Jesus was false, and the Church was barbaric. So I left. Later, I discovered Wicca, and I felt a whole lot better as Wiccan than I ever did as a Christian. Now try to tell me that I should 'try it'.

I used to be 'christian' before I got saved. It didn't do much for me. I hated church. Still do, in most cases.

No, your original point was about limits on logic, not on physical forces.

Science is limited to physcal, natural forces, and so is the logic of science.

You miss the point. How many times is that now?

Whatever point you have about our ability to move into the future is moot. We cannot move out of this state. God set it up that way. Not at the present time, anyhow.

No, you are basing that on it's present state. I am predicting the future by looking at what happens to the trillions of stars around us. All the ones like our sun expand into Red Giants.

In the present state! You assume that the stars are not in the present state, I don't. They are. The whole universe is. (possible exception of the inner earth)

Perhaps. But what makes you think that there should be anything outside the box?

Most of us know that there is more than the physical.

That is why the spiritual does not exist.

No, that is why science can't get hold of it, with it's little, grubby, PO hands!

It's having a weak grasp on reality?

No, having a firm grasp.

The Matrix trilogy is a good analogy, nothing more. If you are going to resort to arguments from ridicule, then perhaps it is best left.

Well, then maybe stop questioning reality.

No, your belief in Jesus gives you a sound mind. How do you know that it is Jesus, not some innanimate neurological system?

We are not insane. Christians know it isn't in the mind.

Perhaps uncertainty is foriegn to you, too.

I would hope so. We have certainty. We know whom we believe, and are fully persuaded. We try not to be like a wave of the sea, tossed by the wind. Perhaps that's why they say, 'No rest for the wicked'.

The same claim could be make about Muslims and the Qu'ran. Your point?

I don't hear them making it.

No, we are not. A singularity has zero length in all dimensions.

Then I am right, your idea does have a lot of change, and mine is simpler. Me and Occam, you know, have a lot in common.

Ex nihilo. The energy used to create the universe is balanced by the potential energies (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, & weak).

Assuming it was a tiny hot soup mess of PO material. I think that it was not in that state early in creation. So your conjectures, and strange dreams, and assumptions are all fairy tales.

Where did your god come from?
Where did the energy to create the universe come from?
Why is a logically inconsistent god true?

He never came from a PO universe, we can start there! Then, since He created the original universe, we can say also it was not of PO material! To really have any clue, we must have some idea of the merged materials. You can hardly find your way around this universe, how would you expect to explain the complete, merged, eternal one, or what came before????? Baby steps. Real science only gets exciting in heaven.

No, it is not. You must make grandose assumptions that must later be subjected to Occam's Razor.

Well, assuming a jet assembled, and created itself is no more subject to the monk's idea, than that the universe did!

Simple is simple is simple.

Ok, let us ponder that for awhile.

There is not 'good' or 'bad' simple. Of course, there is 'simple that I like' and 'simple that I don't like'.

Who writes the simple rules? You? That must make it simple.

He frowns on your god, mon ami. Logic rejects divinity until something substantial can be presented. And, if you have any, present it now.

He frowns on my God, He won't last long! Your logic is on a short fuse.

I was answering your question. Did you forget?

Which one, can you remember?

Love is an irrational, if wonderful, feeling. Your god is not wonderful, though he is irrational.

Love is more than a feeling. It may manifest itself that way, but it is a cross state, fundamental force of the ubniverses!

(This is starting to remind me of the 'screwtape letters')

 

[CaptainJeanLucPicard]

Love is more than a feeling. It may manifest itself that way, but it is a cross state, fundamental force of the ubniverses!

Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Electromagnetic Force
Gravity
Love?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They are obviously meant to be.

Not necessarily. It may all be metaphor and analogy. But my question was 'Do you believe it to be literally true?'.

Because some things are spiritual, and that is a seperate state at the moment.

This is what you originally said:
Some things, like a seven headed beast, are true, but spiritual, and not literal in a PO realm.
You have no expanded. Why do you believe it to be spiritual and not physical?

But it is true here, just not literal.

Mutually exclusive, I'm afraid. Things cannot be really true, and not literally true.

In other words, there really is a beast that has seven kingdoms (as the horns are clearly explained as being, point blank, in case you didn't know that). They were, as also clearly explainde, several of the major world powers of history. In other words, the devil has possessed the leaders, basically, and run the world.

Pure conjecture and self-fulfilling prophecy. You must first show us why we should listen to the Bible at all. This is your basic assumption that you continue to fail to substantiate.

Well with Romans and Greeks, I wouldn't be surprised.

Wouldn't be surprised about what? And what does this have to do with the point (that homophones are not necessarily equal in meaning, especially across time periods)?

Because He must protect and care for His Own, or there is no hope for mankind. If not for us, the rest of the world would not be here.

There is only 'no hope for mankind' because your god decided it. It's like setting up a trap for your child just so you can have the satisfaction of saving them from it.

Doesn't seem to have given any more of a path than the dead end of science, when it comes to things beyond the PO.

That is because you have such a warped definition PO and non-PO, that it cannot logically exist, only you believe in it, and only you claim to have evidence for it (which you yet to produce).

Mickey mouse, cheap imitations and shadows of the real deal.

How rude. What makes the Bible more 'real' than the Qu'ran?

But they are somewhat impressive, even being so far from perfect.

How are they imperfect?

Because science only deals in the present state natural.

That is your falsely applied term. You have yet to indicate why we should assume that there is anything but this 'present state natural'.

Nothing there to reject. I just pointed that out.

No, you didn't. The 'same past' is an assumption you have isolated and rejected. Why do you reject the assumption of immutable physical laws?

There is no scientific reason to accept a 'different past', as you claim here.

I'm sorry? This is exactly what I said, and have been saying this whole time.

There is no evidence that supports a 'different past', as you claim.

Then why claim that you have it, if you don't?

I have the bible.

Because it is oh-so reliable.

If most of the world know of it as we speak, and always has, nothing is more well known!!

1) Most of the world could believe in geocentrism, but that wouldn't make it true.
2) Most of the world, in actual fact, do not believe spirituality to be as you believe it to be.
3) Once again, widespread belief does not constitute absolute knowledge.

Cover to cover it screams out of a different past and future. Make a bible case if you like, or think you can. Step right into the ring anytime.

Very well.
1) I claim that the Bible contains no verses that state or otherwise imply an alternate set of physical laws once applying to this our universe.
2) The Bible contains no such verses.
3) Therefore, my claim is true.
KO.

Yes, it says in the bible these heavens shall pass away and new ones come.

So? This mentions nothing about the physical laws or the state of the universes foundations. The heavens could be physical, they could be spiritual (by whatever definition), but there is nothing to suggest that they must conform to different physical laws than our own.

It is basic, unquestionable bible.

Unquestionable? I think not.

Notice no one dares challenge that?

All non-Christians, and a fair few Christians, challange it. Don't be so absurd.

We have an Agent.

That is what I just said ¬¬
In any case, this agent makes your assumption less complex, and is therefore rejected by Occam's Razor with respect to my assumption.

God.

I sincerely doubt that. What makes you think that your god has told you that your 'remerging' is going to take place soon?

Only on your part. All good gifts are from the Father of lights.

I'm sorry? Could you tell me how 'Maybe God's wisdom tuned him in to something there.' is anything but conjecture?

Right, and remember His God. Keep things in context.

His god had nothing to do with the discovery, not the context in which the principle should be applied. How on Earth do you figure otherwise?

It is misapplied, and paganized.

Nonsense. You call it missapplied because it does not agree with you! This is utter nonsense.

You almost worship the silly idea! You claimed, if you recall, it was the highest principle in the UNIVERSE!

That I did, although this is far from worship; it is merely in recognition of the fact that it, as a logical principle, is universally applicable.

What is this? You chanting the slogan now?

No, I was merely answering your question.

No. Only from nothing PO.

I do like how you think nihilo can be PO and non-PO. Nihilo is exactly that: nothingness. It is neither PO nor non-PO.

Selective much?

That is the entire point of Occam's Razor.

So you chose a one sided razor.

Again, the entire point. Occam's Razor points to the most simple.

OK. Newsflash, it cuts both ways!

Hardly. It points to the most simple.

It is irelevant to you, if you don't accept the spiritual, and God.

On the contrary, you claim to have evidence of a contradiction in one of the most fundamental of physical assumptions. It is very relavent to me, as I am taking Theoretical Phyics and Applied Mathematics at university.

All you have to realize is that you can't prove the same past or a different one with science.

No, and neither can you. We can, however, pick the more probable, and Occam's Razor (and basic intuition) tell us that it is the former.

It should be taught as such, not misrepresented, and dressed in science clothes, parading around as science. The cross dressing must stop,

I'm sorry? Why is an assumption not science? It passes the scientific method, and so is scientific by definition.

He did come dowm, remember?

No. It was alleged to have happened many years before my birth.

He told us they were right.

He told you to love each other, to turn the other cheek. I bet you didn't do that.

Now, how it happens has no relation science can make to how it happened.

That is irrelevant. The point is that Creationism does not go into any detail, which is why Evolution appears complex.

That is a fact. A real fact, not a hypothesis.

A fact, eh? Care to show the proof?

Dead ducks may be easier and simpler to catch, but not worth the hunt!

That depends on what you are hunting for. If you desire dead ducks (in our scenario, we desire the logical choice), then you hunt for dead ducks. Why hunt the illogical choice?

No, the point there was not that is it wrong to ask why, but that it would be good to know what you ask why about, exactly. Rather than just sticking a "Why?" in a post by it's lonesome.

It is not on it's lonesome. It has the relevant quotation above it. It is not hard to guess the question, mon ami.

It can only expand so far, within the limits of the present natural, that define it.

There is no reason to assume that these limits even exist.

It is indeed built on that assumption, and that is why it is so limited to the present, and always will be, until we nix it.

How, exactly, will negating empiricism unlimit anything? We will be constrained to 0 knowledge.

No, don't think so. I did used to lean to something like that in the days when I leaned on flood geology.

Flood geology is a laughable pseudoscience. I would stay well away from that, at least from a non-critical point of view.

CONTINUED

 

[Wiccan_Child]

CONTINUATION

Same evidence you have, and human experience of the spiritual as a real factor, and the bible.

1) Though our evidences may be the same, specific examples and why they support your case would be more helpful.
2) Human experiance is neither objective, nor is it conclusive on the matter of the existance of the spiritual. Let me makes this clear: just because something widely believed, does not make it true. That is what science is for.
3) The Bible, as ever, is objectively unjustified and is not evidence until appropriately justified.

There are no records on earth predating this, the dates are wrong and based on false assumptions. Look into it.

Acheulean artifacts are of human design and date to ~.65 million years ago.

• Roche H et al., 2002, Les sites archaéologiques pio-pléistocènes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya: bilan synthétique 1997-2001, Comptes Rendus Palevol 2, 663-673, qtd in Scarre, 2005
• Scarre, C (ed.) (2005). The Human Past. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28531-4.
• Clark, JD, Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the Later Acheulian in Africa in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001
• Wikipedia

Atoms are some of the things affected. How atoms now work is not direct evidence of how they did, or did not work.

Perhaps, but neither does it support your claim.

Well, my preferred term would be antichrist! ...
It all does not have to be that way. It just happens to ne infested with the antichrist disease at the moment.

Nonsense. The Antichrist is a mythical entity with no evidence to support it's existance. That you invoke it now and claim it to be 'infecting' science is insanity.

They will be if they are not now, within a few years.

Nonsense. The Earth, and life, will remain irrespective of how much we try to destroy it. It is possible that, in the far future, we could eradicate life, but not in a few years time.

But I thought I heard that if they used all the nukes, we would all die?

While I doubt all humans would be killed, I am certain that life will continue. Only surface organisms would be affected by a nuclear winter.

Whoever uses science in this world, we can be sure it will be wickedly used. It comes with the territory.

Utter unjustified Christian propaganda. Go join Westboro Baptist Church if you enjoy such drivil.

We should be more positive.

What, and hold hands and sing under the rainbow? If no life existed, there would be no suffering. Simple.

Many things I read of their wicked tinkering make my skin crawl.

Ah, how conclusive. Care to cite any of these 'things you read'? I'd personally like to show the Secretary General of the UN this grave document.

I think that is common knowledge.

Nonsense. I have never heard anyone mention secret and illegal research into genetics.

Like some companies that may not like to, say have a mine in some rich country with too many regulations. They might go to South America or some place, with far less regulations, and do business there. Same principle.

Perhaps. But you have yet to tell me why I should believe this conspiracy theory. Perhaps they are constructing a super soldier?

The box is the universe we live in. Science is the study of the natural universe. The only way it is not constrained is if this is all there ever was and will be.

I agree with you up to here, though most of it is a tautology.

You cannot speak to that.

But you can?

At best, all you can say is that you don't realize you are limited.
I am not limited, but free of the shackles of the mere physical only.

Hah! The arrogance.

I used to be 'christian' before I got saved. It didn't do much for me. I hated church. Still do, in most cases.

You believe in the Bible is the word of the christian god, and that said god's messiah descended to Earth and died for our sins. You don't get much more Christian than that.

Science is limited to physcal, natural forces, and so is the logic of science.

Science may be limited to your 'box', but logic is not.

Whatever point you have about our ability to move into the future is moot.

Ah, of course. How dare I try to rebute your clearly indominateable logic.

We cannot move out of this state.

So why assume there is any other state to be in?

In the present state! You assume that the stars are not in the present state, I don't. They are. The whole universe is. (possible exception of the inner earth)

The inner Earth? What is special about that?
Anyway, it is obvious that everything is in it's present state in the present. In the future, things will be different, because the univsere is still trying to reach equilibrium.

Most of us know that there is more than the physical.

No, you, and only you, believe you know.

No, having a firm grasp.

And that helps you, does it? By rejecting empiricism, and advocating mutable physical laws, you get a firm grip on reality?

Well, then maybe stop questioning reality.

Why on Earth should I? If do not question things, then what progress could be made? The nature of reality is one of the oldest puzzels in philosophy.

We are not insane.

You worship that which cannot logically exist. That, mon ami, is insanity.

Christians know it isn't in the mind.

No, they think they know. By the nature of knowledge, they can never know, and nor can anyone else.

I would hope so. We have certainty. We know whom we believe, and are fully persuaded. We try not to be like a wave of the sea, tossed by the wind. Perhaps that's why they say, 'No rest for the wicked'.

You have certainty, but you do not have proof. Try on working with that before you stoop to catagorical statements that cannot be justified.

I don't hear them making it.

Have you never seen a defence of the Qu'ran then? How unsurprising.

Then I am right, your idea does have a lot of change, and mine is simpler. Me and Occam, you know, have a lot in common.

I was not talking about my assumption, I was talking about what a singularity is. And no, your assumption is not simpler. You invoke a deity, one of the most common violations of Occam's Razor.

Assuming it was a tiny hot soup mess of PO material.

'Tiny hot soup mess'? Try picking just one or two (actual) adjectives.

I think that it was not in that state early in creation. So your conjectures, and strange dreams, and assumptions are all fairy tales.

You think, therefore I'm all fairy tales?

He never came from a PO universe, we can start there!

So we know where he did not come from, but that was not my question. Where did he come from?

Then, since He created the original universe, we can say also it was not of PO material!

Again, we know where the energy did not come from, but that was not my question. Where did it come from?

To really have any clue, we must have some idea of the merged materials. You can hardly find your way around this universe, how would you expect to explain the complete, merged, eternal one, or what came before????? Baby steps. Real science only gets exciting in heaven.

I.e., you don't know.

Well, assuming a jet assembled, and created itself is no more subject to the monk's idea, than that the universe did!

I'm sorry? Whoever thinks that jets are self-assembling? Besides, Occam's Razor is merely a fundamental logical principle for deciding between to otherwise identicle assumptions, hypothesises, or theories. It does not apply to single ideas.

Who writes the simple rules?

Conventional definition. Simple is definied to be void of subjective or qualitative morality.

He frowns on my God, He won't last long! Your logic is on a short fuse.

Hardly. Your god will, one day, be relegated to the same mythical curio shop as the Greek pantheons, Creationism, and Geocentrism.

Which one, can you remember?

Yes. Unlike you, I have mastered the quotation system here.
You asked: Where is there a love course we can take in science????
I replied: I believe it is a submodule of most sociology and psychology courses.
You replied: So?

Love is more than a feeling.

No, it is not. It is purely an emotional instinct evolved to strengthen social animals.

It may manifest itself that way, but it is a cross state, fundamental force of the ubniverses![/quote]
Utter romantic nonsense. There are only four fundamental forces, as Picard pointed out: Gravitation, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear.

 

[dad]

Not necessarily. It may all be metaphor and analogy. But my question was 'Do you believe it to be literally true?'.

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

This is what you originally said:
Some things, like a seven headed beast, are true, but spiritual, and not literal in a PO realm.
You have no expanded. Why do you believe it to be spiritual and not physical?

As I indicated above, it is explained as such, telling us what it means.

Mutually exclusive, I'm afraid. Things cannot be really true, and not literally true.

Yes they can! The physical has manifestations of the spiritual, so it is true, but not something physical we can see here. There really is a devil, the drago, here since the garden, who had kingdoms, a certain number of them, and a certain end.

Pure conjecture and self-fulfilling prophecy. You must first show us why we should listen to the Bible at all. This is your basic assumption that you continue to fail to substantiate.

No, this is a science forum. All we need to know is you can't prove the same past, and your whole old age evo case is null and void!

Wouldn't be surprised about what? And what does this have to do with the point (that homophones are not necessarily equal in meaning, especially across time periods)?

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

There is only 'no hope for mankind' because your god decided it. It's like setting up a trap for your child just so you can have the satisfaction of saving them from it.

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

That is because you have such a warped definition PO and non-PO, that it cannot logically exist, only you believe in it, and only you claim to have evidence for it (which you yet to produce).

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

How rude. What makes the Bible more 'real' than the Qu'ran?

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

How are they imperfect?

No ther prophesies are 100 % right.

That is your falsely applied term. You have yet to indicate why we should assume that there is anything but this 'present state natural'.

If you can't figure that out, I can't help you! Long as we are clear that is all you are dealing with and have not the faintest clue the past and future were like this or different!

No, you didn't. The 'same past' is an assumption you have isolated and rejected. Why do you reject the assumption of immutable physical laws?

Why should I accept something baseless? Says who, why? Show us the money. Show us the proof. Not just hot assumptions.

I'm sorry? This is exactly what I said, and have been saying this whole time.

No scientific reason to accept a same or different past.

Then why claim that you have it, if you don't?

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

Because it is oh-so reliable.

Better than the nothing you have where science gstops.

1) Most of the world could believe in geocentrism, but that wouldn't make it true.
2) Most of the world, in actual fact, do not believe spirituality to be as you believe it to be.
3) Once again, widespread belief does not constitute absolute knowledge.

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

Very well.
1) I claim that the Bible contains no verses that state or otherwise imply an alternate set of physical laws once applying to this our universe.
2) The Bible contains no such verses.
3) Therefore, my claim is true.
KO.

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

So? This mentions nothing about the physical laws or the state of the universes foundations. The heavens could be physical, they could be spiritual (by whatever definition), but there is nothing to suggest that they must conform to different physical laws than our own.

No heaven can not be just physical, any more than Jesus body. the earth can't even last forever in a physical universe.

Unquestionable? I think not.

You question it? Go ahead and try.

All non-Christians, and a fair few Christians, challange it. Don't be so absurd.

Not as a bible claim they can't. It is basic.

That is what I just said ¬¬
In any case, this agent makes your assumption less complex, and is therefore rejected by Occam's Razor with respect to my assumption.

No simple is on my side.

I sincerely doubt that. What makes you think that your god has told you that your 'remerging' is going to take place soon?

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

I'm sorry? Could you tell me how 'Maybe God's wisdom tuned him in to something there.' is anything but conjecture?

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

Nonsense. You call it missapplied because it does not agree with you! This is utter nonsense.

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

That I did, although this is far from worship; it is merely in recognition of the fact that it, as a logical principle, is universally applicable.

You call em like you see um.

I do like how you think nihilo can be PO and non-PO. Nihilo is exactly that: nothingness. It is neither PO nor non-PO.

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

That is the entire point of Occam's Razor.

Again, the entire point. Occam's Razor points to the most simple.

Hardly. It points to the most simple.

Your side is complicated. Get over it.

On the contrary, you claim to have evidence of a contradiction in one of the most fundamental of physical assumptions. It is very relavent to me, as I am taking Theoretical Phyics and Applied Mathematics at university.

Our evidence outside of science for a spiritual, and God, is as wide as the ocean, and deep as the sea. As high as a mountain, as enduring as eternity. It has a billion faces, and a billion voices, and all of history.
The stars declare creation, and a billion miracles agree. Another billion prayers came true, how could I not agree?
"
The Whisper of the Sea
Silenced tones of silver light, Racing with the wind; Darkened shadows kissed by night, Beckoning within. Its arms of sweet repose, Emotions rearranged, Capturing the heart exposed; Freeing minds deranged. Listening to strength unknown, Moving from beyond; The endless source of magic shown, Living with the song That ripples through the waves, Emanating peace, Echoing the changing ways; Appearing with release. Shuddering with every breath Of fire in the air; Breaking with the ties of death, Refusing to despair. Crashing with the sands of time, Falling with the mist, Echoing the rising tide, Returning with a kiss. Stretching out to foreign lands, Washing over hearts; Showing that it understands The dreams that never start. Holding in its mystery The secrets of the mind, In sweet, complex simplicity Our whispers all combine. (Unknown)

No, and neither can you. We can, however, pick the more probable, and Occam's Razor (and basic intuition) tell us that it is the former.

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

I'm sorry? Why is an assumption not science? It passes the scientific method, and so is scientific by definition.

No, only when an assumption is backed up by something. Most assumptions in science are, because they deal in the reality of the present. It is only assumption that tries to beam that assumption up to the future.

No. It was alleged to have happened many years before my birth.

Don't go last thursdayish on us now.

He told you to love each other, to turn the other cheek. I bet you didn't do that.

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

That is irrelevant. The point is that Creationism does not go into any detail, which is why Evolution appears complex.

It appears complex because it is. Very. You dun dulled the razor so much there it looks more like a pencil.

That depends on what you are hunting for. If you desire dead ducks (in our scenario, we desire the logical choice), then you hunt for dead ducks. Why hunt the illogical choice?

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

It is not on it's lonesome. It has the relevant quotation above it. It is not hard to guess the question, mon ami.

Great, what was it?

There is no reason to assume that these limits even exist.

Don't go Buzz Lightyearing on us now. There are limits to what we can do, and laws.

How, exactly, will negating empiricism unlimit anything? We will be constrained to 0 knowledge.

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

Flood geology is a laughable pseudoscience. I would stay well away from that, at least from a non-critical point of view.

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

 

[dad]

1) Though our evidences may be the same, specific examples and why they support your case would be more helpful.

Well, for simplicity sake, all we have to realize is that science cannot prove or evidence either. My forte is that I have more than science to rely on, as well as all the science you do.

2) Human experiance is neither objective, nor is it conclusive on the matter of the existance of the spiritual. Let me makes this clear: just because something widely believed, does not make it true. That is what science is for.

No, science is not to prove or disprove the belief in a spiritual. Science is for playing in the box.

3) The Bible, as ever, is objectively unjustified and is not evidence until appropriately justified.

Bingo.

Acheulean artifacts are of human design and date to ~.65 million years ago.

• Roche H et al., 2002, Les sites archaéologiques pio-pléistocènes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya: bilan synthétique 1997-2001, Comptes Rendus Palevol 2, 663-673, qtd in Scarre, 2005
• Scarre, C (ed.) (2005). The Human Past. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28531-4.
• Clark, JD, Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the Later Acheulian in Africa in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001
• Wikipedia

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

Perhaps, but neither does it support your claim.

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

Nonsense. The Antichrist is a mythical entity with no evidence to support it's existance. That you invoke it now and claim it to be 'infecting' science is insanity.

Prove it, or that is an insane claim. A tree is known by it's fruit. The allergy, and aversion to all things Jesus anywhere near science stinks 2 blocks away.

Nonsense. The Earth, and life, will remain irrespective of how much we try to destroy it. It is possible that, in the far future, we could eradicate life, but not in a few years time.

Based on what do you make this claim??? Wishes?

"Professor Hawking insists the survival of the human race depends on it finding homes on other worlds.
He believes global warming, nuclear war or a genetically engineered virus could wipe out life on our planet. "
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/CityHom...ne/citytimes_June84.xml&section=citytimes&col=

While I doubt all humans would be killed, I am certain that life will continue. Only surface organisms would be affected by a nuclear winter.

Well, being a surface organism, I think that is close enough. He will stop it. The bible says, 'except those days be shortened, no flesh should be saved'

What, and hold hands and sing under the rainbow? If no life existed, there would be no suffering. Simple.

Or joy. Simple.

Nonsense. I have never heard anyone mention secret and illegal research into genetics.

Remember the Manhattan project? That was secret. They never had laws then for that science, but for things they do now, some may get around it. Look at the stories of forced organ donnations. Etc.
""There's all kinds of secret research going on right now," says Matthew Meselson, a Harvard biologist who has worked closely with the military. ..."
..
Despite these fears, the administration is pushing to expand research programs even further. In a rare unclassified report on the Pentagon's biodefense plans, James B. Petro, a top official in the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently called for a new federal "threat assessment" facility for advanced bioweapons. Such a facility, he wrote, would investigate topics with "limited implications for the general bioscience community, but significant application for nefarious scientists."


To many observers, the statement indicated that the United States is moving toward a pre-emptive approach, attempting to beat terrorists to the punch by being the first to produce novel pathogens. "What they seem to be saying to me is that we are actually in a defensive/offensive arms race," says Malcolm Dando, a British bioweapons expert at Bradford University. "If the U.S. goes down these roads, it indicates routes that people can follow."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/03/02_400.html

That is just an example. Then there is China, and Korea, etc.

You believe in the Bible is the word of the christian god, and that said god's messiah descended to Earth and died for our sins. You don't get much more Christian than that.

Thanks.

Science may be limited to your 'box', but logic is not.

How do you tell where logic ends and begins after it leaves known laws, and science??

Ah, of course. How dare I try to rebute your clearly indominateable logic.

Try, is the key word.

So why assume there is any other state to be in?

Why not?

The inner Earth? What is special about that?
Anyway, it is obvious that everything is in it's present state in the present. In the future, things will be different, because the univsere is still trying to reach equilibrium.

It is a prison for spirits. It is also the center of earth, which is the center of the universe! We can't see it now, being in the PO temporary state, of course. But God is moving right here forever.

No, you, and only you, believe you know.

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

And that helps you, does it? By rejecting empiricism, and advocating mutable physical laws, you get a firm grip on reality?

No, by taking Jesus, He gives us a sound mind. Understanding He is a spirit, and heaven is different, etc, comes after the fact. In some cases, not at all, if the bible isn't really believed, apparently.

Why on Earth should I? If do not question things, then what progress could be made? The nature of reality is one of the oldest puzzels in philosophy.

Solved.

You worship that which cannot logically exist. That, mon ami, is insanity.

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

No, they think they know. By the nature of knowledge, they can never know, and nor can anyone else.

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

You have certainty, but you do not have proof. Try on working with that before you stoop to catagorical statements that cannot be justified.

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

Have you never seen a defence of the Qu'ran then? How unsurprising.

Why? How is it important?

I was not talking about my assumption, I was talking about what a singularity is. And no, your assumption is not simpler. You invoke a deity, one of the most common violations of Occam's Razor.

Maybe that's why you like it so much? You think it cuts out God. A singularity is your dream, to start. No such thing. Do you have one you can show us?????? Since all the universe and the planet was supposedly in the little speck, we can say it was a different entity. The razor just got you.

'Tiny hot soup mess'? Try picking just one or two (actual) adjectives.

Dream soup.

You think, therefore I'm all fairy tales?

Your so called science of the unknown is.

So we know where he did not come from, but that was not my question. Where did he come from?

If you knew that you'd be God. try understanding the spiritual, and PO, and merged, before you try to figure out how He was always here. Baby steps.

Again, we know where the energy did not come from, but that was not my question. Where did it come from?

First of all, what kind of energy was it? Who says it was energy that did it? You are stabbing in the dark here.

I'm sorry? Whoever thinks that jets are self-assembling?

Who thinks the universe is self assembling???? Why not a jet? It is far less complex?

Besides, Occam's Razor is merely a fundamental logical principle for deciding between to otherwise identicle assumptions, hypothesises, or theories. It does not apply to single ideas.

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

Conventional definition. Simple is definied to be void of subjective or qualitative morality.

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

Hardly. Your god will, one day, be relegated to the same mythical curio shop as the Greek pantheons, Creationism, and Geocentrism.

False prophesy.

Yes. Unlike you, I have mastered the quotation system here.
You asked: Where is there a love course we can take in science????
I replied: I believe it is a submodule of most sociology and psychology courses.
You replied: So?

You assume psycho course can tell us anything about love???? No.

No, it is not. It is purely an emotional instinct evolved to strengthen social animals.

No, that is a base, and PO attempt to explain the greatest power in the universe. It can span the breadth of the universe in less than a moment of time! It can heal broken hearts, and in conjunction with the spiritual world, change the universe.

Utter romantic nonsense. There are only four fundamental forces, as Picard pointed out: Gravitation, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear.

They are not cross universe state forces. They are PO forces. Love is so much more lasting, and powerful than all these, our mind can't comprehend at the moment.

 

[dad]

Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Electromagnetic Force
Gravity
Love?

Yes, love has real power. It will be here when the present forces that hold our temporary physical universe together are long gone, and not needed any more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, love has real power. It will be here when the present forces that hold our temporary physical universe together are long gone, and not needed any more.

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