spiritual science

[dad]

It will get destroyed again, so in the end, the prophecy is true?

It apparently was prophesied to be rebuilt after 70 years, if I read the bible commentary right. in Isaiah 23:15,17 . This begs the question then, if the ultimate fullfilment is actually yet to come. Certainly there has been a good taste of it already, with Nebuchadnezar, and Alexander the Great! If the ultimate fullfilment was meant to be right away, God wouldn't have had it being rebuilt.

 

[dad]

Oh, so now you're trying to persuade me by force? What, are you going to rally all the Christians under your banner and overwhelm the atheist commies? I would thank you to put some thought into your posts rather than spouting religious idealism.

It is time believers stopped being cowed by science falsely so called, and took a stand for God, and the bible. I don't know where you dug up the 'force' bit, though. Perhaps in some countries, the believing majority could fight with votes, and legal dollars, and etc!!

How is my belief baseless?

The belief that our past and future was physical only is without basis, cannot be proved, and just ain't so. It is upon this belief that all old age dating is based. At least as I understand it so far.

It is a very simple principle which states that the correct theory is generally the one that covers the facts and makes as few extraneous assumptions as possible. And I choose to believe the science we have, validated as it is by centuries of empirical observation

And, as said many times, no one is talking about real actual science, and observations, but a belief of what a long gone past was like. Gravity works, we can see things fall. This is science. Adam's world was spiritually infused, this is belief. Adam's world was physical only, this is belief. Stick to real science.

You have no proof of either your "vast experience" or the veracity of the Bible. Therefore, your spiritual split conspiracies are unnecessary to explain the world and serve only as unnecessary burden on thought, just the type of thing Ockham's Razor strives to eliminate.

A real Ockham fan, I see. But the razor cuts both ways. It also eliminates your PO belief, by making as few extraneous assumptions as possible. Assuming there was physical only is an unnecessary burden on thought, just the type of thing Ockham's Razor strives to eliminate. And mankind does have a vast experience with the spiritual, and always has, since the garden of Eden. Billions of people upon billions have believed for good reasons, in things supernatural, and spiritual. This, I'd say is vast.

..you have no claim at all to "actual science."

Of course I do. It is for all mankind. It is the same actual science as you claim. Nothing to do with the bible. But actual science does not incluse the old age belief stuff best called science, falsely so called!

Go first. A natural, five-billion-year-old world is the less outrageous claim compared to a separate set of physical laws which come and go according to the needs of your religion,

Your opinion of what is more or less outrageous is of limited currency. Yes, the physical only universe is temporary, and did come, and will go. Yes, heaven and the spiritual world have different laws than physical only ones here. And saying billions of years doesn't make it so.

The scientists, who you call the "evo bent people," have the high ground in terms of burden-of-proof.

Not all scientists deal with, or buy into the package deal of old age beliefs. If they do, they have no high ground, but base beliefs. Time to flush so called science, and stick to just real science.

Yes. The EVO old-age dreams. As opposed to blind faith in a book written 2000 years ago

Glad you admit the old age evo dreams bit. Don't worry about the bible, however, just concentrate on trying to prove that Adam lived in a physical only world like we do.

 

[Valkhorn]

The belief that our past and future was physical only is without basis, cannot be proved, and just ain't so.

This is the most confusing statement I've ever heard. Maybe if it were corrected to:

The belief that our past and future was spiritual only is without basis, cannot be proved, and just ain't so.

It'd make more sense.

Just what units do we measure ghosts and spooks with? And if the spiritual has nothing to do with the physical, how in the holy hell can you even measure it in the first place or even prove it exists?

Your dogmatic religion has made you quite illogical.

 

[dad]

Maybe if it were corrected to:

Quote:

The belief that our past and future was spiritual only is without basis, cannot be proved, and just ain't so.

It'd make more sense.

Not really. The past was not spiritual only, as it is plain men were flesh. It is also plain the spiritual was present. Can you grow trees in 3 days? Can you live 100 years? Can you talk to animals? Can you provide a water canopy using physical only? Can you split continents apart in short order using phyical only? Can you have some great wind blowing a world of water away from a flooded world? etc. No, with only the physical you cannot do these and other things we know were done.
Can you prove it was not a spiritual and physical, as opposed to physical only? No, you cannot! All you can provide, seemingly is doubt, and belief in the physical only! Neither have worth. Both are science falsely so called. Fess up, your old age theories are faith in a physical only in our past, and future. If you say the sun will burn up, indeed, the dreams obviously extend to the future as well. You have been caught here. You have NO proof that our future or far past was physical only, it wasn't. You better stick to what we do know, and save your personal beliefs for those who somehow share them. Many of us utterly reject them, so don't try to force us to believe as you do. We have our own majority beliefs, thank you very much, backed up by no less than the bible itself!

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Don't you wish. When the ultimate fulfilment comes, all will be clear.

lol, too funny.

"Look...here's a PROVEN bible prophecy come true!"

"umm...actually mate, that hasn't come true...Tyre's still there."

"but it WILL come true...which just proves the bible to be true!"

 

[dad]

lol, too funny.

"Look...here's a PROVEN bible prophecy come true!"

"umm...actually mate, that hasn't come true...Tyre's still there."

"but it WILL come true...which just proves the bible to be true!"

Something not ultimately fulfilled is not really some big proof of fullfilled prophesy. If you want something solid, how about the virgin birth? That was prophesied. So was the town Jesus was born. These are fullfilled. So, e-skeptic, hows them apples?

 

[Nightson]

Something not ultimately fulfilled is not really some big proof of fullfilled prophesy. If you want something solid, how about the virgin birth? That was prophesied. So was the town Jesus was born. These are fullfilled.

Wanna bet?

 

[Caphi]

It is time believers stopped being cowed by science falsely so called, and took a stand for God, and the bible. I don't know where you dug up the 'force' bit, though. Perhaps in some countries, the believing majority could fight with votes, and legal dollars, and etc!!

You can't take a stand on an empty cause. You have yet to prove that the Bible should even be taken seriously, let alone be stood up for against centuries of empirical science.

The belief that our past and future was physical only is without basis, cannot be proved, and just ain't so. It is upon this belief that all old age dating is based. At least as I understand it so far.

By default, the natural laws are the same across the Universe, both in space AND time. If you want to assert that they somehow change based on whether or not spirits are flying around, you need to prove that your part is accurate - until then, the simpler explanation flies, which is that the Universe is the Universe and is so across all dimensions.

And, as said many times, no one is talking about real actual science, and observations, but a belief of what a long gone past was like. Gravity works, we can see things fall. This is science. Adam's world was spiritually infused, this is belief. Adam's world was physical only, this is belief. Stick to real science.

I am sticking to real science. Let me build the conflict from the ground up. I say that the Universe is sensical across all time and space, so the Bible is false. You say the Bible is true, so the Universe was somehow "spiritual" at some point. However, the basic assumption is that the Universal laws are constant, and if you want to assume otherwise, you need to prove it. By a mechanism OTHER than the Bible. If you go back to using "Adam's day" as an argument for Biblescience, you will be using circular reasoning and your entire argument will fall flat.

A real Ockham fan, I see. But the razor cuts both ways. It also eliminates your PO belief, by making as few extraneous assumptions as possible. Assuming there was physical only is an unnecessary burden on thought, just the type of thing Ockham's Razor strives to eliminate. And mankind does have a vast experience with the spiritual, and always has, since the garden of Eden. Billions of people upon billions have believed for good reasons, in things supernatural, and spiritual. This, I'd say is vast.

Ockham's Razor does not eliminate all theories. In terms of basic facts we can both see for ourselves, both of our positions are on equal ground. But, the assumption I make is that the Universe is the same Universe in all dimensions, with exceptions for mathematical anomalies like black holes. The assumption that you make is that the Bible is completely true, so there is some sort of spirit realm that makes physics stand on their heads whenever it suits your paradigm. Hate to break it to you, dad: your assumption is the more outrageous one. If you can offer real proof that all the events in the Bible were perceived exactly as described, we'll talk. But for me, a uniform Universe is the less testing assumption than a talking snake.

Your opinion of what is more or less outrageous is of limited currency. Yes, the physical only universe is temporary, and did come, and will go. Yes, heaven and the spiritual world have different laws than physical only ones here. And saying billions of years doesn't make it so.

Again: a physical-only Universe (as you put it) is the default assumption. It is what we believe until you conclusively prove that this cannot possibly be the case, and that your spirit realm exists. You have not done so except by your very own frustrating brand of circular logic, which comes out to squat on your side. You can keep saying that there is a spirit realm as many times as you like, in as many words as you like... but it's not proven, is it?

Not all scientists deal with, or buy into the package deal of old age beliefs. If they do, they have no high ground, but base beliefs. Time to flush so called science, and stick to just real science.

If by "old age beliefs" you mean the principles of science as they stand in textbooks today, yes, they do. Beliefs are not the problem: that science, which you call "so called," has been built from the ground up on, yes, the basic assumption that the Universe has a constant reality across time. There's no evidence to suggest that it was not, is there? Except for the Bible, which you haven't proved except, as I seem to be having a hard time driving into your skull, by circular logic.

Glad you admit the old age evo dreams bit. Don't worry about the bible, however, just concentrate on trying to prove that Adam lived in a physical only world like we do.

I didn't admit anything - you twisted my words in the same way you twisted science. It's your job to prove the spiritual realm's existence. Until then, the default of a natural Universe with certain uniform characteristics remains.

 

[Caphi]

Not really. The past was not spiritual only, as it is plain men were flesh. It is also plain the spiritual was present.

Prove that the spiritual was present.

Can you grow trees in 3 days? Can you live 100 years? Can you talk to animals? Can you provide a water canopy using physical only? Can you split continents apart in short order using phyical only? Can you have some great wind blowing a world of water away from a flooded world? etc. No, with only the physical you cannot do these and other things we know were done.

This doesn't mean that the spiritual was present, as you say. It just means the Bible didn't happen. That's the more reasonable assumption than to bring up all sorts of spirits that change the laws of physics to suit YOUR needs.

Can you prove it was not a spiritual and physical, as opposed to physical only? No, you cannot! All you can provide, seemingly is doubt, and belief in the physical only! Neither have worth. Both are science falsely so called. Fess up, your old age theories are faith in a physical only in our past, and future. If you say the sun will burn up, indeed, the dreams obviously extend to the future as well. You have been caught here. You have NO proof that our future or far past was physical only, it wasn't. You better stick to what we do know, and save your personal beliefs for those who somehow share them. Many of us utterly reject them, so don't try to force us to believe as you do. We have our own majority beliefs, thank you very much, backed up by no less than the bible itself!

Get down off your high horse and talk sense. You don't need to assume that there's some spirits floating around that account for the Bible - just say the Bible doesn't exist. It's not like you've proved the Bible, so it's not meaningful evidence. We assume by default that the Universe is, as you say, "physical only" because that's the simple assumption, and there is no evidence - none at all, dad - to say otherwise. And I will thank you to stop bringing up "majority beliefs", unless, of course, you're so desperate about your point that you're trying to argue bandwagon.

 

[dad]

Something not ultimately fulfilled is not really some big proof of fullfilled prophesy. If you want something solid, how about the virgin birth? That was prophesied. So was the town Jesus was born. These are fullfilled.

Wanna bet?


-Yes.

 

[Valkhorn]

We have our own majority beliefs, thank you very much, backed up by no less than the bible itself!

*yawn*

 

[AirPo]

Hello! You haven't proved your "split" except by assuming the Bible is true, and you haven't proved the Bible except by assumine your split! That's circular reasoning, folks, and it simply means, to make it simple enough for dad's walnut brain, that you have proved SQUAT.

[If only christians who did even sort of believe the bible realize the invincible shield available to them with this concept, then the battle is almost over.]

The invincible shield of illogical thinking?!?!? That's great.

What's next, the Sword of Ad Hominen?

 

[Caphi]

Invincible shield = fifty-foot-high horse.

 

[dad]

You can't take a stand on an empty cause. [Then give it up] You have yet to prove that the Bible should even be taken seriously, let alone be stood up for against centuries of empirical science. [Forget the bible, if you aren't a believer for now. What the krux of the matter here is, is for those who say that the past (& future) is physical only, just because the present, of course is-to provide some evidence! Plain and simple, who cares about other beliefs at this juncture? Does it matter what the Hare Krista version of heaven is, or the muslim houris of heaven, or the bible, etc? If someone tells our children that Adam's world was just physical only, and there was no God in it, or garden, or fast growing plants, or angels, of eternal life, or even very long lifespans, and a flood, as a result of it only being physical, they darn well better be able to back it up! All they give us is words like 'Oh, it is now physical only, so it must have been then as well' or 'Gee, we assume it was, hec, why not, it's all we know about', or 'Take our word for it, after all didn't we come up with granny and the speck!?' ad nausea.]




By default, the natural laws are the same across the Universe, both in space AND time. [So what? Duh, got any news for us here? How do you know there was no spiritual element near creation time? Or later, when the new heaven and earth are revealed, and the holy city?] ]If you want to assert that they somehow change based on whether or not spirits are flying around, you need to prove that your part is accurate - until then, the simpler explanation flies, which is that the Universe is the Universe and is so across all dimensions.
[Spiritual things cannot be shown to carnal only men, who are so cavemanish in science, as to yet not even be able to so much as detect the universally known spiritual world! All that remains is for you to clearly demonstrate, and prove that a physical only universe was indeed, and will forever indeed be all that God made, or that magically popped out of a speck or whatever!]



I am sticking to real science. [Good] Let me build the conflict from the ground up. I say that the Universe is sensical across all time and space, so the Bible is false. [So what, the bible says time shall be no more, who cares if it is presently touchy feely? We know it is physical, that is elementary] You say the Bible is true, so the Universe was somehow "spiritual" at some point. [There is a spiritual, and a physical, of which both are well known, but modern science only has the wherewithal to detect the one] However, the basic assumption is that the Universal laws are constant, and if you want to assume otherwise, you need to prove it. [I don't assume otherwise, the physical only universe laws likely are pretty constant, in that they reach out into the distant universe. In no way, however do they, or can they reach into our glorious future or past!] By a mechanism OTHER than the Bible. [Name any mechanism you can detect here, as to why it always was a decaying, death filled physical only universe, and provide some real evidence. Not your personal belief here.] If you go back to using "Adam's day" as an argument for Biblescience, you will be using circular reasoning and your entire argument will fall flat. [Adam's day refers to early man. If you have any proof God didn't make Adam, by all means share it, otherwise it remains just a hostile, godless, baseless opinion and belief.]



Ockham's Razor does not eliminate all theories. In terms of basic facts we can both see for ourselves, both of our positions are on equal ground. But, the assumption I make is that the Universe is the same Universe in all dimensions, with exceptions for mathematical anomalies like black holes. [So you project your admitted assumptions beyond time itself, for no apparent reason! Sweet.] The assumption that you make is that the Bible is completely true, so there is some sort of spirit realm that makes physics stand on their heads whenever it suits your paradigm. [But I don't teach it in public schools (yet) as science! You try to piggyback your horrid little baseless beliefs on the back of real science, and sell the innocent the package deal! ] Hate to break it to you, dad: your assumption is the more outrageous one. [See above sentence] If you can offer real proof that all the events in the Bible were perceived exactly as described, we'll talk. But for me, a uniform Universe is the less testing assumption than a talking snake.
[And that is fine. -Your belief and assumptions. Just keep them well distinguished from real science. You find it odd that in a merged universe we can communicate with all God's creatures, and I find it odd for all life to have spawned from some magically appearing lifeform, and the billions of galaxies and stars all to have magically appeared inside a little speck of a hot soup, then expand out to their present size!]



Again: a physical-only Universe (as you put it) is the default assumption. [Also at fault assumption] It is what we believe [I like that, all you evoisticlly bent folks ought to fess up like this guy, that it is just your BELIEF] until you conclusively prove that this cannot possibly be the case, and that your spirit realm exists. [And we all have some particular beliefs, which, until you conclusively prove that this cannot possibly be the case, and that your physical only past and future did exist, we, like you, will keep, and cherish ] You have not done so except by your very own frustrating brand of circular logic, which comes out to squat on your side. [It is not circular to realize there is no proof whatsoever that we were forever bound by the box! ] You can keep saying that there is a spirit realm as many times as you like, in as many words as you like... but it's not proven, is it? [I'll say! And your physical only nightmare past and future never ever ever will be, we can bet our life on it! You don't even have a world of witnesses, miracles, and a hot proven, spiritual bible to weigh in on your side! You have nothing at all, smoke and mirrors, assumptions, belief, -all without so much as one iota of proof!!!!! I really don't know how you guys got away with it for so long!]



If by "old age beliefs" you mean the principles of science as they stand in textbooks today, yes, they do. [No, no principles of science here. They are everyone's friend. We are talking principles of piggybacking empty beliefs on the coattails of science, that are pure poison. ] Beliefs are not the problem: that science, which you call "so called," has been built from the ground up on, yes, the basic assumption that the Universe has a constant reality across time. [Thank you once again for your admitting it!!!] There's no evidence to suggest that it was not, is there? [Or that it was, is there??!!!!!!!!!] Except for the Bible, which you haven't proved except, as I seem to be having a hard time driving into your skull, by circular logic.



I didn't admit anything - you twisted my words in the same way you twisted science. It's your job to prove the spiritual realm's existence. Until then, the default of a natural Universe with certain uniform characteristics remains.
[Exists now, you mean. This says nothing at all to when time shall be no more, and a new heaven and earth is revealed that lasts forever, and this physical only one, and death passes forever away. All this says is 'Well, this is all we of the box can see. therefore there can be nothing else. There are no alps!' ]

.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not really. The past was not spiritual only, as it is plain men were flesh. It is also plain the spiritual was present. Can you grow trees in 3 days? Can you live 100 years? Can you talk to animals? Can you provide a water canopy using physical only? Can you split continents apart in short order using phyical only? Can you have some great wind blowing a world of water away from a flooded world? etc. No, with only the physical you cannot do these and other things we know were done.

How do we know they were done?

Answer: They were not.

See, dad, here's you're problem. You've already assumed that an uberliteral Bible is true, and have invented "spiriscience" out of whole cloth to explain how it all happened.

You've wasted a lot of time, effort, and verbiage to say what YECs have been saying all this time: "Goddidit."

Can you prove it was not a spiritual and physical, as opposed to physical only? No, you cannot! All you can provide, seemingly is doubt, and belief in the physical only!

No more than you can. But we have the present to back us up.

We have our own majority beliefs, thank you very much, backed up by no less than the bible itself!

"We"? Why is it then that even the Christians on these threads have treated you like a raving lunaic?

Face it, dad, you're a majority of one.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The invincible shield of illogical thinking?!?!? That's great.

What's next, the Sword of Ad Hominen?

New additions to CF Armor! I say we start a petition!

 

[Freodin]

First things first: to add a (quote)(/quote) around certain paragraphs is not more difficult than to change the colour of your text. Please do it. It get´s almost impossible to answer your posts though. A guy as intelligent as you should be able to understand how this system works.

All they give us is words like 'Oh, it is now physical only, so it must have been then as well'

No, they don´t. They try to tell you: "What has been looks exactly as if it has always been as it is now. We can observe where changes occured, and they occured according to the same physical laws as they do now."

There simply is no need to invent new "spiritual" or "joined" laws that explain the same observations (if they do offer an explanation at all - yours never did), but allow for every other absurdity that the inventor wants to include.

 

[Caphi]

Forget the bible, if you aren't a believer for now. What the krux of the matter here is, is for those who say that the past (& future) is physical only, just because the present, of course is-to provide some evidence! Plain and simple, who cares about other beliefs at this juncture? Does it matter what the Hare Krista version of heaven is, or the muslim houris of heaven, or the bible, etc? If someone tells our children that Adam's world was just physical only, and there was no God in it, or garden, or fast growing plants, or angels, of eternal life, or even very long lifespans, and a flood, as a result of it only being physical, they darn well better be able to back it up! All they give us is words like 'Oh, it is now physical only, so it must have been then as well' or 'Gee, we assume it was, hec, why not, it's all we know about', or 'Take our word for it, after all didn't we come up with granny and the speck!?' ad nausea

You keep harping on my assumptions, dad, but you yourself are making some rather hefty assumptions, like that the Bible is true. What is wrong with the Universe being the same then, now, and later? I like to keep things simple, and so did William of Ockham. The best explanation is the one that fits all of the facts as tightly as possible, like shrink-wrap. And the naturalistic, "physical-only" model fits the facts much better than your spirit realm. Unless you show something which breaks out of my theory and can be explained by yours, something which you have conclusively proven, is not subjective, and can be specifically cited, I don't have to worry myself with your unwarranted castles of spirits and myths.

So what? Duh, got any news for us here? How do you know there was no spiritual element near creation time? Or later, when the new heaven and earth are revealed, and the holy city?

How do you know there WAS? Do you see? On purely factual grounds, we can say there may be a spiritual realm or there may not be. Ockham's Razor tells me to seek the simplest model, and that means filing the spiritual realm in the same box as phlogiston and the Fairy Queen. You just don't need it to explain the facts!

Spiritual things cannot be shown to carnal only men, who are so cavemanish in science, as to yet not even be able to so much as detect the universally known spiritual world! All that remains is for you to clearly demonstrate, and prove that a physical only universe was indeed, and will forever indeed be all that God made, or that magically popped out of a speck or whatever

So what you're saying is that you can't prove it to me because I'm stupid. Ho ho!

Sorry, arrogance and abuse don't count as proof, dad.

So what, the bible says time shall be no more, who cares if it is presently touchy feely? We know it is physical, that is elementary

What about the Bible? All I said was that it should not be taken as a literal account of history or science.

There is a spiritual, and a physical, of which both are well known, but modern science only has the wherewithal to detect the one

There is nothing of the spiritual which you can cite as well-known which has the Christian god as a unique explanation, or even the most reasonable one.

I don't assume otherwise, the physical only universe laws likely are pretty constant, in that they reach out into the distant universe. In no way, however do they, or can they reach into our glorious future or past!

And why shouldn't they reach into the future or past? I already asserted that they did, and given arguments as to why that should be taken as the default assumption unless proven otherwise.

Name any mechanism you can detect here, as to why it always was a decaying, death filled physical only universe, and provide some real evidence. Not your personal belief here

So now you're making emotional arguments about death and decay. Death, decay, life, color, whatever, it's just part of life. I don't believe in God, your Bible, or your spirit realm, and it's not like I'm some kind of goth or necrophiliac.

Adam's day refers to early man. If you have any proof God didn't make Adam, by all means share it, otherwise it remains just a hostile, godless, baseless opinion and belief

Godless? Yes, very. Hostile? Hostile to who, dad? Baseless? Not at all. It's just that I have natural forces right here in front of my face that I can explain man with, so why bring God, which I don't even know exists, into the picture? Once again, Ockham's Razor: I can explain the facts with what I've got, so I don't need God to explain it for me.

But I don't teach it in public schools (yet) as science! You try to piggyback your horrid little baseless beliefs on the back of real science, and sell the innocent the package deal!

Why are you so fond of the word "baseless"? What is "baseless" is your twisted, tortured science, since it's based on one book and a mountain of logical fallacy.

And that is fine. -Your belief and assumptions. Just keep them well distinguished from real science. You find it odd that in a merged universe we can communicate with all God's creatures, and I find it odd for all life to have spawned from some magically appearing lifeform, and the billions of galaxies and stars all to have magically appeared inside a little speck of a hot soup, then expand out to their present size

Now you're using a strawman to bring my arguments down to your level?! I'm amazed at you.

I like that, all you evoisticlly bent folks ought to fess up like this guy, that it is just your BELIEF

You're also fond of the word "belief," I see, but keep in mind that "belief" does not necessarily mean "false." You believe that your senses are true, don't you? You believe that you're alive, don't you? So stop harping on the word as if just using it instantly makes all of my arguments false. After all, it's not like your arguments are the pinnacle of absolute truth.

And we all have some particular beliefs, which, until you conclusively prove that this cannot possibly be the case, and that your physical only past and future did exist, we, like you, will keep, and cherish

What's your problem with a physical-only past or future? What makes YOU so sure that this is not the case? Because it seems to work pretty well as a scientific model so far. The only thing it doesn't work with is your Bible, which is not quite a rock-hard wall of refutation.

It is not circular to realize there is no proof whatsoever that we were forever bound by the box!

It's the best we have. It's certainly better than creating a whole world of boxes, spirits, and gods, just so you can cling to your precious book.

I'll say! And your physical only nightmare past and future never ever ever will be, we can bet our life on it! You don't even have a world of witnesses, miracles, and a hot proven, spiritual bible to weigh in on your side! You have nothing at all, smoke and mirrors, assumptions, belief, -all without so much as one iota of proof!!!!! I really don't know how you guys got away with it for so long!

Witnesses? I see no witnesses. Miracles? I see no miracles. Proven Bible? What a laugh. You haven't proven one word of the Bible. So basically, you have nothing. I have a few centuries of empirical observation and simple principles of logic and sense. You have a book which you insist is proven, despite the fact that you haven't come close; a world of "miracles and healings" which you haven't proved a bit of either; and a giant pile of exclamation marks. So where exactly do you get off saying that I have no proof?! You're the one with your very own fairy-land of talking snakes and miracle apples.

No, no principles of science here. They are everyone's friend. We are talking principles of piggybacking empty beliefs on the coattails of science, that are pure poison.

You say that they are empty beliefs, but despite what you think, you haven't offered any less empty beliefs, just circular reasoning, ad hominem, and excessive punctuation.

Or that it was, is there??!!!!!!!!!

Good, you've admitted that neither of us has any proof - but only in the creationist's definition of proof. It's spiritual realm vs. no spiritual realm, isn't it, since "physical only" is really just a Universe sans the spiritual realm you describe. And as far as I'm concerned, the spiritual realm is in the same basket as the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee, an entity that has no evidence behind it but that someone still says exists. To say that I have no proof is like me challenging you to prove that the Rhinobee doesn't exist.

So? Do it. Unless you're so closed-minded and cavemanish that you don't believe the Rhinobee exists. You don't have any evidence that it doesn't exist! I have this journal right here! Look, it says right here: "They hunted a Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee," and on the next line, "This is divinely inspired." Really! See, it's true! The Rhinobee is just hiding! But it will eventually come, and you'll be proved wrong, stupid caveman person!

Do you see how silly your arguments look now?

Exists now, you mean. This says nothing at all to when time shall be no more, and a new heaven and earth is revealed that lasts forever, and this physical only one, and death passes forever away. All this says is 'Well, this is all we of the box can see. therefore there can be nothing else. There are no alps!'

See above.

 

[dad]

First things first: to add a (quote)(/quote) around certain paragraphs is not more difficult than to change the colour of your text. Please do it. It get´s almost impossible to answer your posts though. A guy as intelligent as you should be able to understand how this system works.


No, they don´t. They try to tell you: "What has been looks exactly as if it has always been as it is now. We can observe where changes occured, and they occured according to the same physical laws as they do now."

Where can you observe where changes occured as the spiritual was seperated? And you say it looks exactly as if it had been physical only in the past, but how would it look any different once being merged? If the old merged world conditions resulted in, say, fantastically fast layer deposits, and we now see these deposits, we can't say it was deposited at a physical only world rate! If we say, it seems to be the same, all we really are saying, is, 'it is physical, and part of a present physical only universe, so we believe it was somehow just physical back then too.' All you can now observe is the physical, but this in no way means that was all that was at work in the past. Same as saying the sun will burn out in a few billion years, only assuming present process were to carry on till then. The only reason poor, mere men believe and assume this, is that is all they can now see. In no way at all does this prove that it was physical only in the past, or will be in the future. It only shows what they were forced, by their limitations, to BELIEVE it was or will be like.

There simply is no need to invent new "spiritual" or "joined" laws that explain the same observations (if they do offer an explanation at all - yours never did), but allow for every other absurdity that the inventor wants to include.

God's spiritual laws and world are not invented but have been here throughout all man's time on earth. Now the spiritual world is seperate from the physical one for a short time. Now, if someone claims to have some proof that it always has actually only been physical only all along, then we would see it forthcoming. It does not exist, and will never exist! The only way one could imagine thinking the universe was always physical only was a better explanation for all we observe, is by some biased prefered belief. The rug has been pulled out from under you evos here, and it is only a matter of time till you realize it. It reminds me of the story about the young man from a US ghetto in the second world war in Europe who encountered a German soldier. The lad pulled out a sort of barber's razor, flicked it open, and took a swipe at the German before the German could aim his rifle. The German smiled, took aim, and said, "Ha, you missed". The young man smiled also and said, " Oh yeah?, Jus waits till y'all try to shake yo head!" -In other words, he hadn't missed, but the head just hadn't fallen off yet.
So, no need to invent some baseless story that it always was and will be just physical only, just because some may like that belief. No need to assume it is just the way evos like to preach it! Better stick to science, which we can prove, and test, and observe. This in no way includes some dark dreamt up physical only death filled past, and pointless future, that apparently has left some poor souls actually believing we are just beasts!

 

[Caphi]

Where can you observe where changes occured as the spiritual was seperated? And you say it looks exactly as if it had been physical only in the past, but how would it look any different once being merged? If the old merged world conditions resulted in, say, fantastically fast layer deposits, and we now see these deposits, we can't say it was deposited at a physical only world rate!

In other words, your spiritual realm, since it can have any properties you want it to, not only proves itself via the Bible but also absorbs any evidence used against it. That's a "Goddidit" argument, and it is the height of intellectual laziness.

If we say, it seems to be the same, all we really are saying, is, 'it is physical, and part of a present physical only universe, so we believe it was somehow just physical back then too.' All you can now observe is the physical, but this in no way means that was all that was at work in the past.

Possibility is not proof. You keep harping on how we can't prove that the physical was all that was at work in the past, but we don't have to. YOU need to prove that your spiritual realm belongs in the basket with strawberries, and not in the basket with the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee. If all we can observe now is physical, what else to assume was there in the past? Since we don't know for sure, we can say that there was spiritual, that there was mathematical, or that there were tiny pink fairies. Science is about analyzing what we know, not randomly stuffing religious beliefs into what we don't know.

Same as saying the sun will burn out in a few billion years, only assuming present process were to carry on till then. The only reason poor, mere men believe and assume this, is that is all they can now see. In no way at all does this prove that it was physical only in the past, or will be in the future. It only shows what they were forced, by their limitations, to BELIEVE it was or will be like.

That's the logical belief. I could argue JUST as easily that in the past, little pink fairies were responsible for creating life. Or that a magical purple bee was responsible for gravity. Or that Oscar the Grouch dug the Universe out of his trash can. It's okay to admit that no, we don't know for sure what it was like in the far past, but when we start assiging random speculations to it just because we don't know, we delve into the realm of insane mumbo jumbo. Far better to imagine the past and future based on the present.

God's spiritual laws and world are not invented but have been here throughout all man's time on earth.

No, they are your creations, and your problem is to convince us that they're true.

Now the spiritual world is seperate from the physical one for a short time. Now, if someone claims to have some proof that it always has actually only been physical only all along, then we would see it forthcoming. It does not exist, and will never exist!

Don't we? I see no evidence to the contrary.

The only way one could imagine thinking the universe was always physical only was a better explanation for all we observe, is by some biased prefered belief.

Really? Well, I think that your theory of God is a biased preference over my theory of Oscar the Grouch. What's your point?

The rug has been pulled out from under you evos here, and it is only a matter of time till you realize it.

Oh yes, I'm so rug-undered by your circular logic and religious romanticism.

It reminds me of the story about the young man from a US ghetto in the second world war in Europe who encountered a German soldier. The lad pulled out a sort of barber's razor, flicked it open, and took a swipe at the German before the German could aim his rifle. The German smiled, took aim, and said, "Ha, you missed". The young man smiled also and said, " Oh yeah?, Jus waits till y'all try to shake yo head!" -In other words, he hadn't missed, but the head just hadn't fallen off yet.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This isn't proof, it isn't even a valid analogy. Oh wait, it's perfectly true under your spiritual science, because you can make your spiritual science whatever you want so you can just make it say that people don't die until their heads fall off.

So, no need to invent some baseless story that it always was and will be just physical only, just because some may like that belief. No need to assume it is just the way evos like to preach it! Better stick to science, which we can prove, and test, and observe. This in no way includes some dark dreamt up physical only death filled past, and pointless future, that apparently has left some poor souls actually believing we are just beasts!

Sigh... you don't get it, do you? We make an educated guess about the past and future based on the present, because the present is what we know. If we say we don't know what happened in the past, therefore X and Y might be the case, then we might well believe in Oscar the Grouch producing the world from his trash can. You can't disprove it, can you? Use your brain a bit.