spiritual science

[AirPo]

Right, silly as it may be, I think you may be right, that could be their attempted point! Thanks.

You are quite welcome.

I say they are.

And you're wrong, but that's already been pointed out.

Yes, amazing, isn't it how He made a bird that also is a mammal. The question remains, what is it exactly that makes a bat not a bird, or never having been one!?

Already been pointed out

On the sixth day mammals were made. On the fifth day, the birds, a day before.

And on which day were bats made?

"Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
....And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. "

Relevance?

After all, aren't whales mammals?

Yes, they are.

But were not they made on the day of the fish?

They weren't made, they evolved.

Seems pretty simple, they fly or swim, and only an evoisticly tinged method of catagorization says any different?

Not if your're paying attentinon.

Saying they are mammals just don't do it, do you have some reason we should say it is (or was not) not a bird?

Yes, as has been pointed out, again, if you're paying attention.

In the bible, it seems, that is precisely what it makes them. If you disagree, exactly why not?

Because the bible, much like you, is wrong.

 

[Caphi]

The laws of physicas are small potatoes in the big picture! Not only will they change, as heaven makes obvious, but they were changed in our recorded past!

Recorded past? Which one? Oh, you mean the Bible? The one that should on no account be taken as real history or science? Thought so.

Then you personally may do so, enjoy the death and hopelessness, and decay of the physical only, and ignore the bible proofs, and humanities vast encounters with the spiritual!

Hopelessness? I don't feel any hopelessness? Hmm. Nvx, Elec, do you feel any hopelessness? And what Bible proofs? First, on what grounds do you claim the Bible as true, and second, proofs of what?

Maybe he should shave his rear, and have a closer look, to see if a tail is starting to grow?!

I don't know what this means. Ad hominem, perhaps?

Think about what you are saying. All proof is based on physical only, as ample as you think it is. All of it requires the belief that there was never anything else, of which, it is, that we are talking about, there is NO proof! If you think there is put it on the table, I'm calling you out.

Perhaps one can't prove that there is nothing "spiritual." However, note that physical science has gotten along perfectly well without assuming a spiritual patch, and Ockham's Razor says that if you don't need it to fit the known facts, don't bother.

Well, if the evidence is in this thread, show us where! Otherwise it is just yap yap!

I'm sorry, but you're the one with the spiritual real theories, so the burden of proof is yours.

So, all sharks, and rays, then are "fish" in your books? Who was it who shot up something about scales? Guess they were out of line. How about eels?

YOU are the one who decided that everything that ever touched water was a fish (ironically, THAT is a box-minded approach, as you call it). Sharks are in a different phylum from fish.

Your granny is right, she sure ain't mine, neither did this first lifeform spawn me

Oh good, so you're an alien. Perhaps you could make some money by selling yourself to the circus.

No, of course not, science falsely so called, however does! By belief that there was no spiritual and physical at work then, but only the physical. This they do, in dating. Why pretend otherwise, and provide empty yapping?

The science we have works perfectly well without assuming there's a spiritual realm, and since it seems to be fine with or without this "spiritual" stuff, why bother? Besides, science acts only on what is observed or implied, and your spiritual physics patch is neither observed, nor is there any evidence backing it up.

No, I've got that. And it fits hand in glove with the undeniable truth of God's word! -Despite your personal interpretation that science must include science falsely so called!

His personal interpretation? You're the one who's mutilating science to fit the needs of your precious prettily-bound book of mythology.

It is falsely so called, as I have defined it, because wild, Godless dreams of the past based only on belief, that run contrary to His word, and can never be evidenced in the slightest are in no way science! Not at all! Evo wet dreams! Nightmares, more like! Baseless fantasy, faith, religion. Talk about 'old time' religion!

Notice it was not talking about science at all, despite your own personal interpretation! It was about evoistic old age belief, in drag, dressed up as science!

...so you're saying that a book written 2000 years ago should be taken as true before 2000 intervening years of empirical observation and theory? YOU are the one with all the wild, baseless, archaic perversions of "science."

This has been well covered. You want to include old age physical only based speculations I call science falsely so called in real science. But personal interpretation of what real science is, really, is worthless.

Ahem, WE'RE using old-age and archaic speculations? Pah. You're the one who feels the need to mutilate centuries of observation, evidence, and intellectual theorizing to validate a 2000 year old book. THAT is old-age, archaic, bizarre, and baseless. Apparently, your so-called "real science" is nothing more than an attempt to say that somehow, the laws of physics, chemistry, and psychology were all different before... and WHO are you calling wild and baseless? Wow.

 

[dad]

None of it requires the belief that there was never anything else. Why do you continue to make these lies?

Of course it does, are you feining dementia here?

Of course my granny isn't yours. She wasn't the first lifeform, either. What are you babbling about?

I have no idea what your granny has to do with anything, why purposely try to muddle things?

There is no 'science falsely so called' - that's your invention to mean 'science that contradicts my religious beliefs'. You cannot provide any evidence to support your claims.

The bible was where I borrowed the phrase, if you have a bone to pick with God, do it.

And for the sake of everyone's sanity, learn how to post correctly. Youv'e been asked this repeatedly - it makes your posts even harder to understand than they should be.

Since you can't understand them anyhow, that should be the least of your crazy worries!

 

[dad]

[/color][/b][/i]

Recorded past? Which one? Oh, you mean the Bible? The one that should on no account be taken as real history or science? Thought so.

Caphi commandment number one. On no account believe God. Ok, we read you.

[/color][/i][/b]

Hopelessness? I don't feel any hopelessness? Hmm. Nvx, Elec, do you feel any hopelessness? And what Bible proofs? First, on what grounds do you claim the Bible as true, and second, proofs of what?

Hopelessness of certain death, with no savior, no God, no heaven, no hope of seeing loved ones again, and such. And as far as claiming the bible is true, forget it! If you haven't figured that out, too bad. All you need to know is you cannot disprove it.

[/color][/b][/i]

I don't know what this means. Ad hominem, perhaps?

You talked about some guy's razor, I thought of some good use to put it.

[/i]

Perhaps one can't prove that there is nothing "spiritual." However, note that physical science has gotten along perfectly well without assuming a spiritual patch, and Ockham's Razor says that if you don't need it to fit the known facts, don't bother.

We do need the spiritual to fit the known facts of the creation. We don't need someone's belief that there was no merged world, and spiritual, so I don't bother. Old Ocky can go back to shaving his rear!

[/i]

I'm sorry, but you're the one with the spiritual real theories, so the burden of proof is yours.

No. All versions of a far past are theories, and belief based. The physical only belief merits no acceptance above any other belief. If you say it does, you'd better prove it! Which you can never do.

[/i]

YOU are the one who decided that everything that ever touched water was a fish (ironically, THAT is a box-minded approach, as you call it). Sharks are in a different phylum from fish.

Precisely why?

[/i]

Oh good, so you're an alien. Perhaps you could make some money by selling yourself to the circus.

So now people who were not spawned of the non existant first lifeform are aliens?! Strange beliefs indeed, some of you evo bent folks

[/i]

The science we have works perfectly well without assuming there's a spiritual realm, and since it seems to be fine with or without this "spiritual" stuff, why bother? Besides, science acts only on what is observed or implied, and your spiritual physics patch is neither observed, nor is there any evidence backing it up.

No need to bother, I say, don't in fact! Stick to the present physical only universe, and world, and you'll do fine. Just keep any belief that the created ancient world was like that to yourself!

[/i]

His personal interpretation? You're the one who's mutilating science to fit the needs of your precious prettily-bound book of mythology.

Yes, absolutely, any personal belief, such as that there was no spiritual merged world, as the bible indicates, is interpretation. Now don't get into cover envy here. If you want your fables to look pretty, fork out a little dough, and do it.

[/i]

...so you're saying that a book written 2000 years ago should be taken as true before 2000 intervening years of empirical observation and theory? YOU are the one with all the wild, baseless, archaic perversions of "science."

No observation has antything else to say, so calm down. It is not observation, but faith based speculation that tries to contradict God

[/i]

Ahem, WE'RE using old-age and archaic speculations? Pah. You're the one who feels the need to mutilate centuries of observation, evidence, and intellectual theorizing to validate a 2000 year old book. THAT is old-age, archaic, bizarre, and baseless. Apparently, your so-called "real science" is nothing more than an attempt to say that somehow, the laws of physics, chemistry, and psychology were all different before... and WHO are you calling wild and baseless? Wow.

Call it what you like, but it is wild and baseless to believe and preach that there was no spiritually merged universe, and always only a physical only one! Some evidenceless attempt to say that somehow, the laws of physics, chemistry, and psychology were all the same before the split.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Of course it does, are you feining dementia here?

No, it does not. That you think it does is just more evidence that you don't know the first thing about science.

I have no idea what your granny has to do with anything, why purposely try to muddle things?

I'm not. You mentioned granny - I'm still trying to figure out what she has to do with anything.

The bible was where I borrowed the phrase, if you have a bone to pick with God, do it.

I know exactly where you borrowed the phrase. Sadly, it's not god who's trying to apply it to science - it's you.

Since you can't understand them anyhow, that should be the least of your crazy worries!

Well, if you have no ambition to be understood, I wonder why you bother to post here at all.

 

[Freodin]

Gee, dad, perhaps you could use your vast knowledge of spiritual science to get the quote-funtion right, would you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Gee, dad, perhaps you could use your vast knowledge of spiritual science to get the quote-funtion right, would you?

dad's thinking ahead -- his posts will look perfectly fine after "the merge..."

 

[dad]

No, it does not. That you think it does is just more evidence that you don't know the first thing about science.
[If you knew the slightest thing about science you would not say that]


I'm not. You mentioned granny - I'm still trying to figure out what she has to do with anything.
[Whats up with you and your granny? Give it a rest will you, we don't want to hear!]


I know exactly where you borrowed the phrase. Sadly, it's not god who's trying to apply it to science - it's you.
[How do you know?]


Well, if you have no ambition to be understood, I wonder why you bother to post here at all.
[I don't expect a baby to eat a steak, nor do I expect you to understand all that much. If you can unserstand so little, why do you visit forums?]

.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If you knew the slightest thing about science you would not say that

Sorry, dad, you've already demonstrated, time and time again, that you don't know the first thing about science. It's no news to anyone on these forums. Every post you make ranting about your 'spiriscience' just confirms it.

Whats up with you and your granny? Give it a rest will you, we don't want to hear!

You brought her up. If you don't want to discuss her, why did you bring it up?

How do you know?

Are you claiming to be god?

I don't expect a baby to eat a steak, nor do I expect you to understand all that much. If you can unserstand so little, why do you visit forums?

I understand very well. However, when somebody repeatedly posts in a confusing manner, ignoring the way one is supposed to post, it makes it difficult to understand. Add to that the cryptic nature of some of your rants, and at times you are very difficult to respond to. A polite - and effective - way to make yourself be understood better would be to learn how to actually post in this forum. It's not hard. I'm sure even you cuold do it, if you set your mind to it.

 

[dad]

I understand very well.

Good. Now if can ease up a little on hearing about your grandparents, and your beliefs in there not being a spiritual merge in our past, we might do alright here. Not that you aren't entited to your faith, but lets try not to mix it with science! Now as far as toning down your rants that there is no spiritual knowledge and reality in our past, that would be asking too much. Just try to add some substance to the empty rhetoric if you can, and try to be polite. Thanks. That wasn't so hard now was it?
For all that work, I'll share a new gem.
Gen 6:3 - And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Here God set a timetable, I believe for the split! I used to think, like most, it was a timetable till the flood. We were given 120 years, then, I believe, were to be left in a physical only universe! Peleg was born 101 years after the flood, so that leaves somewhere around 19 years or so before the flood for Noah to build the ark, not 120 years, as previously assumed! So, to review here, the split came some century or so after the flood. When the earth was split, or devided. Truly amazing!

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Good. Now if can ease up a little on hearing about your grandparents

If you don't want to hear about them, don't bring them up.

and your beliefs in there not being a spiritual merge in our past

Cite anywhere I have stated that I believe this. You can't. You're a liar.

Not that you aren't entited to your faith

I have no faith.

but lets try not to mix it with science!

You are not qualified to discuss science.

Now as far as toning down your rants that there is no spiritual knowledge and reality in our past

I have nowhere stated this. You lie.

that would be asking too much

Looks like you being truthful would be asking too much.

Just try to add some substance to the empty rhetoric if you can, and try to be polite

Just try to add some substance to the empty rhetoric if you can, and try to be truthful.

Gen 6:3 - And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Here God set a timetable, I believe for the split! I used to think, like most, it was a timetable till the flood. We were given 120 years, then, I believe, were to be left in a physical only universe! Peleg was born 101 years after the flood, so that leaves somewhere around 19 years or so before the flood for Noah to build the ark, not 120 years, as previously assumed! So, to review here, the split came some century or so after the flood. When the earth was split, or devided. Truly amazing!

I'm not interested in your whacky ideas.

 

[dad]

"and your beliefs in there not being a spiritual merge in our past"

Cite anywhere I have stated that I believe this. You can't. You're a liar.


"Not that you aren't entited to your faith"

I have no faith.

So you have no faith, and you do believe there was a spiritual merge in our past? Sure sounds like you are taking it with a grain of salt! Are you suggesting that you don't think the world in Adam's day was like today's physical only? No point in trying to pretend you are sitting on the fence, and just issue vague snipes that seem to hint you are some authority on real science!

You are not qualified to discuss science.

You are not qualified to say that.

I have nowhere stated this. You lie.

The preponderance of your posts makes it quite clear that all you accept is physical only, that you have the power to observe! Your spelling of God, with a little g and stating you have no faith seems to indicate you do not believe that the bible, and the split is true. Your hollow cries for tangible evidence of the intangible spirit world resinate with self righteous denial, and you seem quite adamant to include science falsely so called in the definition of science. I have many times pointed out that it is false to call the dating aspects of science, based on present physical only observations as if they also were all that existed in the past (hence the long dates) anything but a belief. I have hashed it over many times with many people, and this was verified 6 ways from Sunday. Your false accusations, and pretender's claim to the throne of real science, is nothing more than hand waving. Your only contribution is to be accusitory, insulting, and pass off the gas of some false airs of having some aloof claim on science.

"Gen 6:3 - And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Here God set a timetable, I believe for the split! I used to think, like most, it was a timetable till the flood. We were given 120 years, then, I believe, were to be left in a physical only universe! Peleg was born 101 years after the flood, so that leaves somewhere around 19 years or so before the flood for Noah to build the ark, not 120 years, as previously assumed! So, to review here, the split came some century or so after the flood. When the earth was split, or devided. Truly amazing!"

I'm not interested in your whacky ideas.

Hey, electric, if your lightbulb goes on, and you ever actually get an idea, do come back and share it. Whether or not you are interested, ( I guess someone makes you post, or pays you?) the fact is you have nothing to say possible, in the least to refute it!! Not science, or the bible. Hey, no wonder you have more and more resorted to negative utterly empty and devoid kookiness! I guess it's the thought that counts.

 

[Caphi]

Caphi commandment number one. On no account believe God. Ok, we read you.

On no account at all? No. If you can give me hard evidence that your God exists, I'll believe in him. But you haven't. The Bible is clearly false except under your strange, tortured science, which is as good as begging the question, so it doesn't fly as evidence.

Hopelessness of certain death, with no savior, no God, no heaven, no hope of seeing loved ones again, and such. And as far as claiming the bible is true, forget it! If you haven't figured that out, too bad. All you need to know is you cannot disprove it.

I don't feel hopelessness. It's just how things work. I feel no more hopelessness about death than I feel hopelessness that if I drop my pencil, it goes toward the ground.

We do need the spiritual to fit the known facts of the creation. We don't need someone's belief that there was no merged world, and spiritual, so I don't bother. Old Ocky can go back to shaving his rear!

Creation is not "known facts." You're starting with the assumption that the Bible is true and twisting science around it, rather than starting with science and looking at the Bible. Or perhaps that's the root of the problem. You trust the Bible first, I trust science first. And before you say my science is "falsely so called," why do you call it false? Merely because it contradicts the Bible, which you assume to be true above all else. It all goes back to axioms, dad. Your basic axiom which lies underneath all your thinking is "The Bible really happened." Discard that axiom and try to prove it before you use it as a basis for logic.

No. All versions of a far past are theories, and belief based. The physical only belief merits no acceptance above any other belief. If you say it does, you'd better prove it! Which you can never do.

Your new perverted science is also a belief-based theory. It's based on a core belief that the Bible is true. If we don't regard that as an immutable truth, there's no need for your spirit-patch. The science we have is just fine. Now - do you want to believe the Bible first, or science first? I choose science, dad. You've clearly chosen the Bible. That isn't my problem.

So now people who were not spawned of the non existant first lifeform are aliens?! Strange beliefs indeed, some of you evo bent folks

"Evo bent folks"? Ad hominem ahoy! No, we have your so-called "evo bend" because we choose to rely on centuries of empirically backed science built from basic observations, and you choose to rely on your book and base the rest of your thinking on that. The choice between centuries of human knowledge suggesting that maybe that one 2000 year old book is not totally true, or the 2000 year old book suggesting that there's some mysterious spiritual realm that you can't prove and we don't need... I pick the science.

Yes, absolutely, any personal belief, such as that there was no spiritual merged world, as the bible indicates, is interpretation. Now don't get into cover envy here. If you want your fables to look pretty, fork out a little dough, and do it.

My fables? You're the one who feels the need to think the laws of physics were somehow different in the past, so that you can believe in 1000-year-old men, talking snakes, and apples that make you immortal. We choose to believe the laws of physics are more-or-less constant across the Universe (except in very select instances, like singularities) and believe that the book is false. How is it more irrational to believe one really old book to be false than to believe that the laws of physics stand on their heads whenever God is around? I don't believe in God in the first place.

No observation has antything else to say, so calm down. It is not observation, but faith based speculation that tries to contradict God

Why not contradict God? The only evidence we have that he even exists is your book, which we have chosen to believe AFTER looking at it through the lens of science, which causes a certain interpretation. You choose to believe Science after looking at it through a very thick lens of the Bible. That's the only difference between you and me. I believe science first. You believe the Bible first. Unfortunately, I've got better reasons to believe in science than you have to believe in the Bible. YOU are the one with the faith-based ideas. You take it as read that the Bible is true with no evidence, only pure faith. I take science as read because I realize it is based on the known facts and little faithor assumptions. Ockham's Razor once again.

Call it what you like, but it is wild and baseless to believe and preach that there was no spiritually merged universe, and always only a physical only one! Some evidenceless attempt to say that somehow, the laws of physics, chemistry, and psychology were all the same before the split.

But why is my science baseless, dad? Only because you take the Bible before science, and form your own perversion of science around the Bible. But I argue that YOUR arguments are baseless, because you base all of them on the Bible... yet you have nothing to convince anyone that the Bible itself is literally right, while I have certain doctrines of logic and common-sense to back up my science.

 

[Caphi]

So you have no faith, and you do believe there was a spiritual merge in our past? Sure sounds like you are taking it with a grain of salt! Are you suggesting that you don't think the world in Adam's day was like today's physical only? No point in trying to pretend you are sitting on the fence, and just issue vague snipes that seem to hint you are some authority on real science!

I'm glad you've figured out quoting. No, Elec has no more faith than I do. You are the one who has such total faith that the Bible is literally true. Yes, Elec and I have some amount of faith that what we learn and see from authorities is true, but I realize that what I learn as science is built carefully from centuries of observation and method, while you have nothing but blatant question-begging as support for your Bible-truth axiom.

The preponderance of your posts makes it quite clear that all you accept is physical only, that you have the power to observe! Your spelling of God, with a little g and stating you have no faith seems to indicate you do not believe that the bible, and the split is true. Your hollow cries for tangible evidence of the intangible spirit world resinate with self righteous denial, and you seem quite adamant to include science falsely so called in the definition of science. I have many times pointed out that it is false to call the dating aspects of science, based on present physical only observations as if they also were all that existed in the past (hence the long dates) anything but a belief. I have hashed it over many times with many people, and this was verified 6 ways from Sunday. Your false accusations, and pretender's claim to the throne of real science, is nothing more than hand waving. Your only contribution is to be accusitory, insulting, and pass off the gas of some false airs of having some aloof claim on science.

Yes, he doesn't believe the Bible. Neither do I. It's Bible-first versus science-first... and the same old argument.

Hey, electric, if your lightbulb goes on, and you ever actually get an idea, do come back and share it. Whether or not you are interested, ( I guess someone makes you post, or pays you?) the fact is you have nothing to say possible, in the least to refute it!! Not science, or the bible. Hey, no wonder you have more and more resorted to negative utterly empty and devoid kookiness! I guess it's the thought that counts.

Refutation is irrelevent. You have the Bible as the basis for all your claims. Elec has science... and the same old argument.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

So you have no faith, and you do believe there was a spiritual merge in our past? Sure sounds like you are taking it with a grain of salt! Are you suggesting that you don't think the world in Adam's day was like today's physical only? No point in trying to pretend you are sitting on the fence, and just issue vague snipes that seem to hint you are some authority on real science!

Who said I believed it? I've not said that I believe it OR that I disbelieve it. You need to not make assumptions.

You are not qualified to say that.

Anybody who knows anything about science (as opposed to you) is qualified to say that.

The rest of your post is the usual empty posturing, which I wont' bother to respond to.

Come on, dad. For several threads now you've been talking about your 'spiriscience'. Despite repeated requests, from myself and others, you have been unable to provide any information at all about this 'spiriscience'. You've claimed it's testable, you've claimed it's 'real' science, yet you haven't been able to outline a single test, you haven't been able to provide a methodology, you haven't been able to show a single thing that 'spiriscience' has discovered or might one day discover.

So come on. Put up or shut up. You're the one putting forward this 'spiriscience' as if it were a real discipline. So do it. Tell us how it works, what methodologies it uses, how we can test it, what it has discovered or can discover. Tell us what "Dad's Institute of Spiriscience" would DO, if such an institute were founded.

This is your chance. Tell us about your 'spiriscience'. Gain some credibility.

Oh, and see if you can do it without talking about a 'box', and without talking about 'science falsely so called'. We've all heard those rants - now we want to hear about 'spiriscience', not you railing on science.

 

[dad]

[/i]

On no account at all? No. [Fine, your opinion is valid, and noted] If you can give me hard evidence that your God exists, I'll believe in him. But you haven't. [ There is lots around, but you don't have to accept any. If you have hard evidence that only the physical was at work in our world's distant past, I too will accept it, meanwhile, that belief must remain just that, another belief] The Bible is clearly false except under your strange, tortured science, which is as good as begging the question, so it doesn't fly as evidence.
[ Well, that is a compliment, that a normally false bible is no longer false in the light of the split! Even though you don't personally believe it]

[/i]

I don't feel hopelessness. [Good, the less one feels of that, the better. Nevertheless the hope of all christians and believers would be dead if there was no spiritual, and God, so that scenario looks pretty hopeless to us -compared to the great hope we have.] It's just how things work. I feel no more hopelessness about death than I feel hopelessness that if I drop my pencil, it goes toward the ground.

[/i]

Creation is not "known facts." You're starting with the assumption that the Bible is true and twisting science around it, rather than starting with science and looking at the Bible.[Science itself really isn't at issue. It is the beliefs that try to carry present real science into a past where it does not at all apply!] Or perhaps that's the root of the problem. You trust the Bible first, I trust science first. And before you say my science is "falsely so called," why do you call it false? [I don't! It is real, and pretty useful and interesting and good! What I defined as science falsely so called is only the aspects of belief, where they look into the time of Adam, and early man, when the spiritual was very much together with the physical, and daftly assume that the processes were the same as well! Why assume that? Because that is all we NOW see? Of course. But the trees grew in 3 days, and men first were to live forever, then lived almost a thousand years, etc etc. So it doesn't square up! Where is the problem? The problem is very simple, there was a merged world, and science cannot detect that. Neither can they do anything else in the world but believe otherwise, with no evidence. There is no evidence I have ever heard that the universe was always physical only.] Merely because it contradicts the Bible, which you assume to be true above all else. It all goes back to axioms, dad. Your basic axiom which lies underneath all your thinking is "The Bible really happened." Discard that axiom and try to prove it before you use it as a basis for logic.
[God will never dicard us, why would I discard Him? But as I pointed out, we don't have to.]

[/i]

Your new perverted science is also a belief-based theory. [Glad you said also. Because your old age (remember how I defined this--) science falsely so called is also a belief-based theory. It's based on a core belief that the physical only is all there ever was or will be!] It's based on a core belief that the Bible is true. If we don't regard that as an immutable truth, there's no need for your spirit-patch. [Same goes for the physical only in the past belief.] The science we have is just fine. Now - do you want to believe the Bible first, or science first? [I take both, and chuck out the science, falsely so called belief, thank you very much!] I choose science, dad. You've clearly chosen the Bible. That isn't my problem.

[/i]

"Evo bent folks"? Ad hominem ahoy! No, we have your so-called "evo bend" [Always good to have someone honest enough they have the evo bend!] because we choose to rely on centuries of empirically backed science built from basic observations, [So do I, as well as a perfect spiritual book] and you choose to rely on your book and base the rest of your thinking on that. The choice between centuries of human knowledge suggesting that maybe that one 2000 year old book is not totally true, or the 2000 year old book suggesting that there's some mysterious spiritual realm that you can't prove and we don't need... I pick the science. [I pick both. Thats why I have the big picture, and am not limited to the box of the physical only]

[/i]

My fables? You're the one who feels the need to think the laws of physics were somehow different in the past, so that you can believe in 1000-year-old men, talking snakes, and apples that make you immortal.[Can you prove that only the physical existed then? No! So why kick against the pricks, and feel you have to discard a world of men's spiritual encounters as well?] We choose to believe the laws of physics are more-or-less constant across the Universe [So do I, the are, I think! So what? The whole point is, in the future, and past, they were not!] (except in very select instances, like singularities) and believe that the book is false. [Believe all you want. You are entitled to belief, long as you realize that no proof exists that can back you up there] How is it more irrational to believe one really old book to be false than to believe that the laws of physics stand on their heads whenever God is around? I don't believe in God in the first place. [Then to you it wouldn't be very rational, fine. But the thing is, you have no proof for your beliefs]

[/i]

Why not contradict God? [Millions will automatically know you are false, for one thing. And it isn't wise to make big baseless claims about your belief, for another!] The only evidence we have that he even exists is your book, which we have chosen to believe AFTER looking at it through the lens of science, which causes a certain interpretation. [Well, millions of people, you know do experience healings, miracles, answered prayers, inner peace, comfort, knowledge, tongues, prophesy, and such evidences on a daily basis! So I don't know that it is just the book] You choose to believe Science after looking at it through a very thick lens of the Bible. That's the only difference between you and me. I believe science first. You believe the Bible first. [As I explained, I too believe in science. But also the bible. Therefore the only difference is that you do not believe in the bible, and do believe in a physical only past] Unfortunately, I've got better reasons to believe in science than you have to believe in the Bible. [Since I too believe in real science, this is not true.] YOU are the one with the faith-based ideas. [Yes, sir, and proud of it! Are you proud of your faith based ideas as well? ] You take it as read that the Bible is true with no evidence, only pure faith. I take science as read because I realize it is based on the known facts and little faithor assumptions. [But now, I hope you realize the science falsely so called bits of modern science are only faith and assumptions!!!!!!!! ]Ockham's Razor once again. [Nowhere near as sharp as the two edged sword of God!]

[/i]

But why is my science baseless, dad? [Already explained, -it isn't, just the science falsely so called beliefs that try to sneak into a future and past they will never belong!!!] Only because you take the Bible before science, and form your own perversion of science around the Bible. But I argue that YOUR arguments are baseless, because you base all of them on the Bible... yet you have nothing to convince anyone that the Bible itself is literally right, while I have certain doctrines of logic and common-sense to back up my science.
[Not if it includes the science falsely so called!!!]

.

 

[dad]

Come on, dad. For several threads now you've been talking about your 'spiriscience'. Despite repeated requests, from myself and others, you have been unable to provide any information at all about this 'spiriscience'. You've claimed it's testable, you've claimed it's 'real' science

Science that deals with the present universe is fine. It is a part of science. The only part you likely will ever know about. I have explained the science falsely so called, as having only to do with the baseless belief that the past or future was or will be the same, physical only. What they study in heaven is not really something you can have much ynderstanding of right now, from your 'I have no faith' standpoint. The way that the bible is testable is not a way that you want it to be, so for you, I welcome you to keep your own beliefs, which, if you believe that the past was physical only (?) you have, admit it or not. Hey, will you at least admit you have an evo bend?!
For those not bound by the box, we do have many spiritual laws, and tests, and proofs. It has been proved o'er and o'er! For folks like you, all I can do is let it be known that, concerning the past or future, ALL you have is your own beliefs!

 

[Caphi]

There is lots around, but you don't have to accept any. If you have hard evidence that only the physical was at work in our world's distant past, I too will accept it, meanwhile, that belief must remain just that, another belief

If you have hard evidence that your "spiritual" was at work in the distant past, I'l accept that. But all you have is the Bible. I've already made it clear that the difference between us is that you take the Bible as wholly true, and I do not. You must prove to me that either the Bible is literally true, in which case I'll have to accept your Biblescience, or you prove to me that this spiritual business is true and show how it proves the Bible. So far, you've been asserting the Bible as true based on the veracity of Biblescience, and then trying to prove Biblescience based on the Bible. That's circular reasoning, and it's a fairly big logical fallacy. Prove one or the other, then we talk.

Science itself really isn't at issue. It is the beliefs that try to carry present real science into a past where it does not at all apply!

Yet you haven't yet demonstrated that they DIDN'T apply in the past, and since it's up in the air whether or not they did or didn't apply in the past, Ockham's Razor tells me to go with the simpler explanation - that they did not apply, and that the Bible is false.

I don't! It is real, and pretty useful and interesting and good! What I defined as science falsely so called is only the aspects of belief, where they look into the time of Adam, and early man, when the spiritual was very much together with the physical, and daftly assume that the processes were the same as well! Why assume that? Because that is all we NOW see? Of course. But the trees grew in 3 days, and men first were to live forever, then lived almost a thousand years, etc etc. So it doesn't square up! Where is the problem? The problem is very simple, there was a merged world, and science cannot detect that. Neither can they do anything else in the world but believe otherwise, with no evidence. There is no evidence I have ever heard that the universe was always physical only

Where is the problem, indeed, dad? Science and the Bible don't connect, do they? So why should we throw out science instead of the Bible? After all, I have better reasons to believe science than to believe the Bible, and if there's a conflict, I'll go with the parts that are actually proven and logical. That's science.

Glad you said also. Because your old age (remember how I defined this--) science falsely so called is also a belief-based theory. It's based on a core belief that the physical only is all there ever was or will be!

What's wrong with that belief? It certainly makes more sense than to say that the laws of physics randomly go topsy-turvy when it suits a book, doesn't it?

Can you prove that only the physical existed then? No! So why kick against the pricks, and feel you have to discard a world of men's spiritual encounters as well?

Physical science is what we have, dad. It works perfectly. Again: it makes more sense to suppose that a book is false than to suppose that there's some mysterious "spiritual patch" that makes the laws of physics suit your personal interpretation of the Bible.

So do I, as well as a perfect spiritual book

Of which you have only faith as proof of veracity. You say we take science based on faith alone, but it takes less faith for me to believe the science we have than to believe that a book rife with as much fiction as your average William Sleator is completely true. YOU are the one operating on faith. You've taken your book as literally true, but prove that it's literally true.

Believe all you want. You are entitled to belief, long as you realize that no proof exists that can back you up there

The same to you. You have not proved the Bible except on the basis of Biblescience, which you have proved using the Bible. That is circular logic, and it means that you have really proved squat.

Well, millions of people, you know do experience healings, miracles, answered prayers, inner peace, comfort, knowledge, tongues, prophesy, and such evidences on a daily basis! So I don't know that it is just the book

Mmhmm. Please cite the incidents, show that the Christian God is the unique explanation for these incidents, and then show that they are normal occurences and not coincidences.

As I explained, I too believe in science. But also the bible. Therefore the only difference is that you do not believe in the bible, and do believe in a physical only past

Why shouldn't I believe in a physical-only past? It's more reasonable for me to believe in a physical-only past than to invent all sorts of wild perversions of science just so that I can believe in some millienia-old book.

Yes, sir, and proud of it! Are you proud of your faith based ideas as well?

My beliefs? Faith-based? Maybe. But so are yours. That put us on even ground so far. Except that your faith lies in a book, and mine lies in logic and methodology. Check, please.

But now, I hope you realize the science falsely so called bits of modern science are only faith and assumptions!!!!!!!!

Of course. And it's not faith and assumptions that lead you to believe that your book is an authoritative treatise on history and science. Nope. You have evidence, don't you? You amuse me, dad.

Already explained, -it isn't, just the science falsely so called beliefs that try to sneak into a future and past they will never belong

On what grounds do you assert that they don't belong, dad? On the Bible? You haven't proved the Bible. Oh wait, yes you have - because of your Biblescience. Except you haven't proved that, either - oh wait, the Bible says you're right, and the Bible is true because of your Biblescience, which is confirmed by the Bible, which is true because Biblescience is true... and round and round the circle of fallacy goes.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Science that deals with the present universe is fine. It is a part of science.!

So 'spiriscience' is just science, except it can't deal with anything in the past or the future. Is that right?

The way that the bible is testable is not a way that you want it to be

Great. So in what way IS it testable?

For those not bound by the box, we do have many spiritual laws, and tests, and proofs.

Great. WHAT tests? WHAT proofs?

concerning the past or future, ALL you have is your own beliefs!

Just like you.

 

[dad]

If you have hard evidence that only the physical was at work in our world's distant past, I too will accept it, meanwhile, that belief must remain just that, another belief

</FONT></I></B>

If you have hard evidence that your "spiritual" was at work in the distant past, I'l accept that.

--- Well, fine and dandy, we each have beliefs, and beliefs are not required to be shared. I do have, however, an ancient document that tells us of how it was when merged. More than your belief has --zilch! But, to each his own, and your belief is fine too, long as it isn't dressed up as science and rammed down children's throats!

You must prove to me that either the Bible is literally true, in which case I'll have to accept your Biblescience, or you prove to me that this spiritual business is true and show how it proves the Bible.

Oh no I must not, any more than you must prove that all that existed was a physical only! We need simply to just stick to real, actual, verifiable, known science!

Physical science is what we have, dad.

No, Caphi, it's all you have! I have both.

: it makes more sense to suppose that a book is false than to suppose that there's some mysterious "spiritual patch" that makes the laws of physics suit your personal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, if you think so, and are happy with granny, and the speck, bon apetit! They are mysterious madness to me, non existant, save in the imagination of believers!

You say we take science based on faith alone,

No, I don't say that! We can test science. What is faith alone is science, falsely so called, believing the future and past were physical only as the present is!

Mmhmm. Please cite the incidents, show that the Christian God is the unique explanation for these incidents, and then show that they are normal occurences and not coincidences.

No. They are out there and all around us, if you are interested seek them out -if not, stick with your physical only belief. I'm all for free choice. (Long as it doesn't involve killing babies, weak, or people). And don't try to foist your beliefs on innocent children either.

Why shouldn't I believe in a physical-only past?

Hey, believe what you like! By all means. Your personal beliefs don't concern me, unless forced on children, and others!

My beliefs? Faith-based? Maybe. But so are yours. That put us on even ground so far. Except that your faith lies in a book, and mine lies in logic and methodology.

Completely wrong. Mine lay in the same logic and methodology, that is real science. Science falsely so called, on the other hand I reject out of hand for the belief it is, empty dreams, baseless boasts, and dark tormented tales of a death and decayed past!

And it's not faith and assumptions that lead you to believe that your book is an authoritative treatise on history and science

Whatever leads me there, it doesn't much matter. The important thing for non christians to remember is that their faith in a physical only future and past is nothing more than a belief.

Already explained, -it isn't, just the science falsely so called beliefs that try to sneak into a future and past they will never belong

</FONT></I></B>

On what grounds do you assert that they don't belong, dad?

Doesn't matter, on what grounds do you assert they do? Where is any proof the days of Eden were as the present, physical only??? If you can't prove it, assert it in some place other than a science class. Keep science real, and dark, evo bent dreams of some past never never land to your church, temple, or bedroom, or whatever!!