|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 4, 2018 7:04:27 GMT 10
Pedro's posts require 5 minutes to Copy/Paste! Yours require more time! Any conference,teaching, lectturing, training to do? NOOO!?!? Post a post! Do NOT forget that EVERYTING on your dissertations are ON...... Uncle Google provides a choice of 100 of thousands, millions, 100 of millions of SAME results...in LESS time!! Be kind to other Members Posts if YOU desperately NEED other to respond ACCORDINLY to your Deep Dissertations!! I wish that I was full of IT....it knowledge!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 4, 2018 8:49:58 GMT 10
I think Christianity is ambiguous on the relationship between the Immanence and Transcendence of God.. Admittedly, it is a difficult thing to get one's head around, and more difficult to attempt an explanation without falling into error somewhere along the line. You both seem to be pondering over this as tho it has a reality? … … … …So this 'proof' written…- JC was a real man born on earth, ergo: God exists. Which is no proof at all. Whereabouts have you seen that ‘argument’ being put forward as the proof? Not put forward as such ... but it is the underlying premise.  |
|
|
|
Post by -Tute on Jul 4, 2018 9:31:14 GMT 10
You both seem to be pondering over this as tho it has a reality? Not put forward as such ... but it is the underlying premise. And Tute said to Pedro umpteen posts back .....For God sakes, get God right. God was never in this reality for God to be resolved into. Its only the fools who wish to put God into an existence to equal their own that creates confusion. Foolish men then complain of non existence of an entity that he never believed existed.... What's worse is that they require proof! .... of what: their insanity!....For Gods sake! |
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 4, 2018 9:49:23 GMT 10
Admittedly, it is a difficult thing to get one's head around, and more difficult to attempt an explanation without falling into error somewhere along the line. You both seem to be pondering over this as tho it has a reality? And you seem to ponder, and seem very sure, that it is not. How do you know? … … … …So this 'proof' written…- JC was a real man born on earth, ergo: God exists. Which is no proof at all. Whereabouts have you seen that ‘argument’ being put forward as the proof? Not put forward as such ... but it is the underlying premise. If people worship a merely human figure who actually lived then that would be idolatry, and it would be mythology if people worship a figment of the Church’s imagination. There are many atheists who posit that Jesus lived but that does not follow that he was the Godman. You need a different set of arguments in order to try and establish that as at least plausible. |
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 4, 2018 10:01:09 GMT 10
Blast!! HERE WE are..again!! The contents of YOUR posts are listed/published by GooglerBookos. Read pages 13670 to 26934!! ( Google Entry/Exits of Spiritual Bulverio Number:312 millions 934!!
NOW, children, get your lunch box, blow your nose (clean hanky, I hope!!)and proceed to the School Yard, away from the Toilets Blocks!
Children, Children, Childre! Blessed are THEIR Socks!!
|
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 4, 2018 10:10:27 GMT 10
You may be right that the Chalcedonian definition made things clear. That was the consensus, whether under pressure or not, of the Council at the time, but it still generates a lot of confusion among both the unlearned and the learned, laity and clergy. I certainly came across professional theologians (can't remember their names now) in my studies who claimed that it was not just Christ's human nature that suffered, but that God suffered, too. They obviously felt that this was consistent with the notion of God as Abba. A quick google search came up with this, written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his prison cell. Here is the decisive difference between Christianity and all religions. Man’s religiosity makes him look in his distress to the power of God in the world: God is the deus ex machina. The Bible directs man to God’s powerlessness and suffering; only the suffering God can help.
Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 1967, p. 188. I've read a few of Bonhoeffer's books and I don't think he was a heretic. I wonder if he elaborated on that statement? ...Basil declared that " what was common to the Three and what was distinctive among them lay beyond speech and comprehension and therefore beyond either analysis or conceptualisation".
** Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 1971, p. 223It's been said that when God talks to men he has to stutter. The mystery of the trinity is just one thing among many that don't make a lot of sense from a human naturalistic perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 4, 2018 21:16:36 GMT 10
See, Bluesky, I told you you were much more knowledgeable than me. No one has ever said to me that "When God talks to men he has to stutter". |
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 5, 2018 8:05:32 GMT 10
It is VERY important to choose a subject of discussions/dissertations that, after 7 thousand years IS still unresolved. That will CERTAINLY last a bit longer than FOR, EVER and a BIT!! OR...produce El Crapo Deeply Meaningful Dissertations! The El Crapo and the Serious Unresolved Philosophical/Religious Dissertations SHOULD/MUST be BRANDED as such!! It is far too easy to confuse/mistake ONE with the OTHER...apart from the length of the "dissertations!!
Pedro
PS. TAKE CARE! THIS post is El CRAPO!! Do NOT be fooled by the length of it!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 5, 2018 11:15:52 GMT 10
Ah god is within us all within every nuclei that makes up our very esse, Consciousness over animal cogniscence be where we might first seek his presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 5, 2018 16:19:17 GMT 10
You both seem to be pondering over this as tho it has a reality? And you seem to ponder, and seem very sure, that it is not. How do you know? How do I know? In reality, in the real world of the physical senses, there is no evidence, and (statistically most important) never has been. God or the omni-potent one exists ONLY in the minds of some homo-sapiens. The meta-physical reality is not a physical reality. So how can it be either proven or disproven to exist when it has no 'physical' attachments. So if it seems that I'm sure it doesn't exist it's because the over-whelming weight of evidence shows no sign at all of such a being. So let me ask you, given zero evidence, why are some people so foolish as to believe. At the end of the day, that is the question that needs to be answered. He who asserts must prove (Hammurabi's Code) |
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 5, 2018 16:28:58 GMT 10
And for those learned one's that ponder what they believe to be imponderables (snigger) then let me at least clear up one mystery for you. The Holy Trinity. One God in three and three in one, each one different and all the same (how any sane creature ever fell for this is beyond belief) They were once three different Gods of three different race/cultures. When the Monkey King, the leader of the most powerful of these three races forced the other two leaders to the negotiating table and united them, the one problem they couldn't iron out was the three different beliefs. So it was put forward that the most powerful leader's god would be God and the other two would attach as the Trinity. A purely political solution of expediency. This is true. This is reported by Sir Isaac Newton who once made it his responsibility to investigate that holy Trinity. But hey, even the greatest scientist that ever lived ain't gunna be able to change the foolishness of some men is he? Just think, some ancient crude political spin-doctors cooked up a con-trick that, 1000s of years later has lost nothing in it's ability to fool the gullible. (Heheee) As for Basil of Cappadocia, we must never forget that his last name was Fawlty. |
|
|
|
Bulverism
Jul 5, 2018 17:13:34 GMT 10
via mobile
Post by Sediba on Jul 5, 2018 17:13:34 GMT 10
And Tute said to Pedro umpteen posts back .....For God sakes, get God right. God was never in this reality for God to be resolved into. Its only the fools who wish to put God into an existence to equal their own that creates confusion. Foolish men then complain of non existence of an entity that he never believed existed.... What's worse is that they require proof! .... of what: their insanity!....For Gods sake! You would be better off just explaining Hoo/Wot/How your version of God is rather than just telling everyone else their version is wrong ... and arrogantly assuming that everyone knows what you're talking about ... for God's sake |
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 5, 2018 17:43:13 GMT 10
How do I know? In reality, in the real world of the physical senses, there is no evidence... No evidence of what? The meta-physical reality is not a physical reality. So how can it be either proven or disproven to exist when it has no 'physical' attachments. So if it seems that I'm sure it doesn't exist it's because the over-whelming weight of evidence shows no sign at all of such a being. What has no "physical attachments"? It wouldn’t matter anyway because in reality, in the real world of the physical senses there is no evidence, and there’s none in the meta-physical reality either. But if the meta-physical is a reality there’s no bloody evidence there either. arrghhhhh. So let me ask you, given zero evidence...  You’ve just moved above from above when you said 'in the real world of the physical senses, there is no evidence' to 'over-whelming weight of evidence' to '...given zero evidence...'. So which is it, do we have evidence or is that not allowed? But, if there is an over-whelming weight of evidence, how the hell would you know, apart from your senses? All that aside though, I think what you might be presupposing is that science is the only judge of truth. Moral values cannot be scientifically proven, nor can aesthetics, mathematics and logic etc. There are a bunch of things that people hold to be rational that cannot be scientifically proven. Interesting you bring up Newton as it was him that would appeared to have gone against your very ideas in the Principia Mathematica: |
|
|
|
Bulverism
Jul 5, 2018 21:41:13 GMT 10
via mobile
Post by Sediba on Jul 5, 2018 21:41:13 GMT 10
There is overwhelming evidence of the physical world. There is no evidence for the metaphysical world. How simple is that? So semantics plays no part here. And why are you playing semantics anyway? Because you can't confute (google it) so your only come back is to confuse. But just for one ludicrous moment, let's suspend the real world and allow that Newton believed in God (that's what you've put forward) ... why, o why, dear Bluesky does that mean his debunking of the holy-trinity is incorrect? It doesn't does it? Has nothing to do with it does it? So why run science down? Just because science had no reason for a god in it's account of the Universe. In other phucking words you're doing exactly what Lewis said in the very first post. You're committed the sin predicted in the opening post. You are guilty of the sin of Bulverism !!! When science says two sides of a triangle are greater than the third ... you reply, 'you say that because you're a man' Now to make this really simple ... Why should I believe in something (god and gabriel) that has no supporting evidence, and in order to do so, disbelieve in something (the present, the here and now) that has overwhelming evidence? That's what you've done and that's what you're asking me to do. He who asserts must prove ... so put up or shut up. Evidence from now on please! |
|
|
|
Post by -Tute on Jul 6, 2018 5:58:40 GMT 10
There is overwhelming evidence of the physical world. There is no evidence for the metaphysical world. How simple is that? So semantics plays no part here. And why are you playing semantics anyway? Because you can't confute (google it) so your only come back is to confuse. But just for one ludicrous moment, let's suspend the real world and allow that Newton believed in God (that's what you've put forward) ... why, o why, dear Bluesky does that mean his debunking of the holy-trinity is incorrect? It doesn't does it? Has nothing to do with it does it? So why run science down? Just because science had no reason for a god in it's account of the Universe. In other phucking words you're doing exactly what Lewis said in the very first post. You're committed the sin predicted in the opening post. You are guilty of the sin of Bulverism !!! When science says two sides of a triangle are greater than the third ... you reply, 'you say that because you're a man' Now to make this really simple ... Why should I believe in something (god and gabriel) that has no supporting evidence, and in order to do so, disbelieve in something (the present, the here and now) that has overwhelming evidence? That's what you've done and that's what you're asking me to do. He who asserts must prove ... so put up or shut up. Evidence from now on please! You absolutely astound me Greg.... you brandish your flag with the same virtue signaling gusto as does a greenie at a green convention... yet you continue to fall on your dummy with your own Bulverism. When confronted by the obvious that 'God does not exist; at least not in your world' and this fact suddenly stares at you like you are the biggest dummy since Sam Harris you then mount a high horse and accuse others of semantics. FFSYou are also aware that science (that you are quick to quote) says that you cannot have a positive without a negative. Philosophy also exhibits the rule of; If P then Q, (being the precedent and the antecedent) you cannot have one without the other. Plus... your illustrious mathematics can never be complete... yet you can still muster the audacity to waffle on about some clown who maintains the profile of an equilateral triangle cannot be disputed....and it is somehow connected to his mother. FFS... again. This world continues to explain to folk that God does not exist except in the minds of those who wish to believe otherwise; just exactly the same as it does in the minds of non believers.... shall I say it again because there are folk about who are obviously deaf...... HE DOES NOT EXIST IN EITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS.... Savvy!!!!. Strewth!.... I think you should be helping Col PLAY with his pet rocks.Finally...The physical world cannot exist without the metaphysical world. We/you/us reside in both, though there are a lot of conceited folk that confine themselves to the physical world... playing with rocks [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by as Tute on Jul 6, 2018 7:13:42 GMT 10
And for those learned one's that ponder what they believe to be imponderables (snigger) then let me at least clear up one mystery for you. The Holy Trinity. One God in three and three in one, each one different and all the same (how any sane creature ever fell for this is beyond belief) They were once three different Gods of three different race/cultures. When the Monkey King, the leader of the most powerful of these three races forced the other two leaders to the negotiating table and united them, the one problem they couldn't iron out was the three different beliefs. So it was put forward that the most powerful leader's god would be God and the other two would attach as the Trinity. A purely political solution of expediency. This is true. This is reported by Sir Isaac Newton who once made it his responsibility to investigate that holy Trinity. But hey, even the greatest scientist that ever lived ain't gunna be able to change the foolishness of some men is he? Just think, some ancient crude political spin-doctors cooked up a con-trick that, 1000s of years later has lost nothing in it's ability to fool the gullible. (Heheee) As for Basil of Cappadocia, we must never forget that his last name was Fawlty. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Coming from one that has the ability, but not the inclination to join the dots, this is a bit rich... its like the pot calling the kettle black.
By any chance could that be the same Fawlty that runs a Bunya bound air b and b |
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 6, 2018 7:42:04 GMT 10
Yes...well...as THEY say/write.... Having the ability to "Join the Dots" IT does NOT mean "to join ANY dots"!! My argentinian ANTY, Tia Maria Dolores used to say: Argentina ( and many, many, many, many OTHER Nations!) are FULL of DOTS!! (Pity, frequently THEY may/are NOT worth....JOINING!!!
Pedro
PS. The above remarks DO NOT REFER nor INCLUDE the PRESENT AND/OR PAST POSTERS of OLD OR NEW POSTS!! DEFINETELY… NOT!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 6, 2018 11:39:29 GMT 10
Whoever put us on the third rockfrom this sun way out here in the never never, sure knew what they were doing. The way we grow we surely will take forever to build a raft that can sail space back to civilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 6, 2018 13:45:18 GMT 10
Tute .... no problems at all with you disagreeing with me. But I don't understand you. You need to be erudite. Here is where I am coming from. There is no evidence of God or the Tooth Fairy. Ergo: there is no God, there is no Tooth Fairy.
You seem to think that the default is as follows. There is a God, that's obvious. Therefore those who say there is none must provide proof. Well, even if you want to accept this scenario, that God is the default, not the hypothesis, then when we examine that 'default' ... guess what ... there is no proof.
You need to explain yourself more clearly... .shall I say it again because there are folk about who are obviously deaf...... HE DOES NOT EXIST IN EITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS.... Savvy!!!!. Strewth!..'
So what scenario does he exist in then?
As for Science saying you must have both positive and negative. ?? That's some kind of DIY-psuedo-science-nonsense you got off the back of a Corn Flakes packet, admit it. (And I have no idea what kind of crazy point you're trying to make with it here)
There are four known forces:
Gravity .. neither positive nor negative.
The Electromagnetic Force: Positive and Negative
The Weak force: W+ W- and ZedZero
The Strong force: 8 different states.
All these forces were once a single force in perfect symmetry, neither positive nor negative. Please Note: Three of these forces have now been united in both theory and experiment. The Electro, The Weak and The Strong .... Their messenger particles (what you're calling positive and negative) are seamlessly interchangeable when the forces are united.
O Dear God in high heaven, why must I suffer these little children?? Please pass this Bulveristic cup from me .. and I don't just say this because I'm a man, but because two sides of a triangle are greater than the third .... (hehhee)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 6, 2018 14:09:15 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 6, 2018 14:15:27 GMT 10
I know this is difficult and probably makes your brain hurt ... but for my sake, my sanity, please give it your best shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 6, 2018 14:28:38 GMT 10
I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
|
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 6, 2018 14:37:26 GMT 10
And, just to show fair play I would think that ..... GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN EITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS .... is a Spiritual Fallacy or excuse. What do you think Tute, seeing as you can't demonstrate or explain it? After all, anything can be spiritually true, can't it? (perhaps Bluesky or even Epic may like to jump to your indefensible-defence?) |
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 6, 2018 15:16:09 GMT 10
There is overwhelming evidence of the physical world. There is no evidence for the metaphysical world. How simple is that? Oh, now Greg, Greg please, you’re just being silly with these ridiculous cut and paste bits from wiki. Just settle down a bit. I never tried to ‘run science down just because science had no reason for a god in its account of the Universe.’ There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. I agree. Just because something cannot be scientifically proven does not mean that there cannot be any justification for it. As I said, and this is worth repeating: 'Moral values cannot be scientifically proven, nor can aesthetics, mathematics and logic etc.' So when you say 'There is overwhelming evidence of the physical world.' Guess what? You can’t prove the external world either, but I’m sure you believe in it, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 7, 2018 8:56:01 GMT 10
There is overwhelming evidence of the physical world. There is no evidence for the metaphysical world. Oh, now Greg, Greg please, you’re just being silly with these ridiculous cut and paste bits from wiki. Just settle down a bit. I never tried to ‘run science down just because science had no reason for a god in its account of the Universe.’ There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. I agree. Just because something cannot be scientifically proven does not mean that there cannot be any justification for it. As I said, and this is worth repeating: 'Moral values cannot be scientifically proven, nor can aesthetics, mathematics and logic etc.' So when you say 'There is overwhelming evidence of the physical world.' Guess what? You can’t prove the external world either, but I’m sure you believe in it, right? OK .... that's sensible. So far as it goes. I disagree this far ... Science can prove the external world. Science can account for all physical events. Science can answer every question that requires explanation. All questions that ask 'how'. Questions that ask why cannot be proven. I agree that both Church and State and us poor beings ask ourselves these questions daily, nightly, in order to make sense of our world, our universe. But there are no answers to these questions, because they are not questions that can be answered, they are non-questions. They are human interpretations of events. The Universe is not unfolding with pre-vision. So perhaps we can bring this thread back into order? Why (hehe) do you believe that 'why' questions have answers that play a part in the events of the Universe? Convince me that a 'why' question is important. |
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 7, 2018 20:51:58 GMT 10
Tute (shouting about "God"): HE DOES NOT EXIST IN EITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS
Sediba: I would think that ..... GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN EITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS .... is a Spiritual Fallacy or excuse. What do you think Tute, seeing as you can't demonstrate or explain it? After all, anything can be spiritually true, can't it?
(perhaps Bluesky or even Epic may like to jump to your indefensible-defence?)
........................................................................................................................
I think it's quite reasonable to say that "God" doesn't exist in any form that can be defined.
However, the one thing that we might all agree on is that Existence exists, where existence is a state of Being, undefinable except in terms of itself, i.e. that which is is by virtue of its own quiddity. This is a tautology and hence is a valid proposition. However, it also adds nothing to our understanding of what it is that is, nor does it tell us anything about the world. It is valid and therefore "true", but in fact meaningless unless one ascribes attributes to "that which is". But once you ascribe attributes to the pure quiddity of Being then you create a contingent being that cannot, thereby, be "God" in the usual theistic sense (omniscient, omnipresent, etc).
What exists in the physical domain is always contingent: always an effect and a cause, even when the cause and effect are unclear, uncertain or manifold (contemporary physics might challenge this: no matter). But perhaps it is reasonable to posit that there is an underpinning domain that is either uncaused or is fluid to the extent that a cause could never be identified. (I'm not putting this forward as a statement of faith, but a purely speculative proposition: not even a hypothesis because it can't be tested.) Nevertheless, reasonable or otherwise, there's nothing one can do with such a speculation other than either (1) make an act of faith that the proposition is acceptable and one should live as though it were true, or (2) permanently bracket such a proposition; put it in one's "Pending" file to think about when the time seems right.
But is acceptance of and adherence to the proposition that there is an underpinning reality on which the physical domain somehow draws the same as "belief in God"? I doubt it because I'm unaware of any belief in God that confines itself to acceptance of mere Being sans attributes.
Advaita Vedantists (non-dualists) can respond to the question "Is there a God?" with affirmation ("yes, in a way, depending on what you mean"); or denial ("No, there isn't; there's nothing other than what is, and that one, non-dual reality includes the physical and non-physical"); or with neither affirmation or denial on the ground that the question is meaningless (this is the view of theological non-cognitivists).
So "God" can be said to not exist as we understand existence, but perhaps to be in a manner unlike contingent existence. Therefore "God" both exists and does not exist. The problem though, is semantic. The word "God" has no semantic value; it is undefinable or, if defined, it is self contradictory (except where it refers to a demigod or demiurge). Better just to refer to Being (or "Existence" in a non-contingent sense) and, if you want to affirm the existence of Existence or Being, you might say "Existence exists" or "Being is", and leave it at that. Then go and cultivate your garden.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 8, 2018 5:22:11 GMT 10
Pedro attempted to answers the following intelligent Maxi Eternal Questions. Could NOT do IT/THEM!!
He does need help from COMPETENT Members!!
++++++++++++++++++++
Is bulverism really an illogical Truth?
I suppose it is. Pikispedia indicates that a Bulverism has 2 spare parts and a Semi-manual transmission:
“Bulverism is a name for a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with a 3 sided circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his Pizza Hut error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker is so smelly, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive.”——
Antimeridian Crambastians Bulverism?
After reading this article though, I found that basically, I can see no difference between what is called a “Bulverism” and what is drilled as The—-Correct Fallacy—-of—Invincible 3 Spiritual Prongs Ignorance.
That is an error by which a person does not even consider your argument, and simply denies that what you do not write or do not say is true.
No argument will have credibility with such a person, no matter how well it is presented.
Perhaps others can offer a better clarification as to the distinctions.
Of course, The—-Genetic—-Fallacy is very specific, and that is not in question here.
We have forgotten THIS:
Roberta Roberts: “You have to admit that you have a conflict of inferior interest…”
Luigi Looney: “Yes, but that doesn’t mean that I’m right/left.”
Bulverism presumes that there is an exclusive joining disjunction between stating something is true because of knowledge or because of wishful thinking. The form is basically:
• Person A says state of affairs B is true.
• Person A either says that because (1) they know evidence that in fact points that way or (2) they want it to be true for their own benefit.
• Person A would benefit from state of affairs B. Therefore, they want it. Therefore case 2 holds. Therefore, not case 12 & 83!!
But the fact is, there is no exclusive disjunction between evidence for a truth and benefit derived from a trout. The two have to be judged on their own terms and they are independent from each other and the 12 Apostoles.
The fallacy is in assuming that because they have an incentive to lie that they must be lying. It is not about doubt it is about being certain. To argue logically that a person must be lying simply because they have an incentive to do so is NOT fallacious.
Related Questions
• What is a logical Papacy?
• What do logical fantasies mean?
• Is random word spitting/spraying a logical fallacy?
• How is a large pizza attack against the person a preposterous illiteracy??
• Is a Filibusy a Rugby Rules players??
• How do we prove that a Islamic Pope is indeed carots voracious?
• In what situation do we use paper towels ?
• Is sleeping and wetting the bed a logical faulty fallus?
• What is the either/or logical fallacy?
• Is saying slurs a logical fallacy?
• How do we argue without logical Spiritual fallacies?
• Is insulting the pestilence a logical fallacy?
• Is mooning a logical fallacy?
++++
THANKS for your help!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 8, 2018 5:59:19 GMT 10
Greg has got part way off his prayer mat and requires Tute to explain a Scientific conundrum to him. Coincidently I have also been challenged by others to put my money where my mouth is.
So…with the words of Pedro…. Oh dearie dearie me! and Gents; from here you will need to pardon my apparent flippancy, but believe me I am deadly serious.
Though before we race off into tangents again, let me say that when we/I refer to the term ‘Science’ that we shall refer to specifics. Whereby it is a qualified science having undergone the due process of complete peer reviews.
Consequently we will be speaking here of real Science; not to be confused by the wet dreams, the like of the AGW brigade and cohorts.
And so the lesson begins…
Science with the aid of human constructs (time, space etc) will inform us that existence ( can also be referred to as mass remember) is manufactured by the means of atoms, protons, quarks and a host of what have you’s all interacting in unison to form a physical mass component. That said mass and physical component becomes what is more commonly known as existence.
The reality of all that mass is not really in question. But! what if there are no atoms, protons, or those little quarks. Ah well then! Science duly undaunted will say; and quite correctly; they are only sometimes there as they flash in and out of existence. Whilst in existence they create the NOW. String theory I think… but it makes sense to this old dude.
Now…at this juncture my guess is, when they are not in existence, they are someplace else…. But you best see Pedro on that score.
There is no doubt in my mind that Science is on the mark… none what so ever I might add. I know this to be the gospel because if I look about me I see close to 8 billion folk living in a NOW existence, all who would be half witted not to agree to that as being so. Also between thee an me…. I do not think there are any amongst those said 8 billion that can tell you where those bloody Atoms and Quarks spend the other 50% of their time but then TIME (especially on this occasion) could well be of the essence.
Could it possibly be that Science is correct; they is and then they isn’t. …. Well NOW; strange that it may seem to some, there are a few quasi imposters on board here that maintain Science must be a load of bollocks as they are steadfastly professing those little quarks are only ever in the IS phase.
A situation of confusion I do agree but then given that the prayer mat is never completely uncoiled; there would be difficulty with the comprehension.
Lesson # 1. complete
|
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 8, 2018 7:50:34 GMT 10
I don't know Epic, to me the concept has been built up over millennia, That is it's quiddity it's esse. They of our past have added to and proclaimed it all they believe and that has added to the esse, yet it still is a concept.
I don't follow how a tautology can be a validation of something, if I happen to state in two different ways the same thing, that don't make it real it just makes it easier for someone to get my concept.
As far as science can see it as yet hasn't seen god. That it knows is god. Science can see to the edge of the universe as they say and have video's of it, with ad breaks no less. They can look down into atoms to the point of seeing and not seeing the esse of it all on a physical level. Yet they have as yet not found god in there.
God created the universe they say, he certainly shouldn't then be a consequence of the big bang, but it seems he is. Odd that.
It does seem this concept is behind the very essence of esse, that which controls the being of quarks before they are quarkes. The essesnce of esse isn't tenable but still is something in which we might have faith. Faith in its being even if we of earth have blown it all out of proportion and made it bipedal and able to write on stone tablets for a fortunate few.
And if it is as a worse case scenario a construct of our combined consciousness then at 8 billion and growing this god is getting bloody big.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedro on Jul 8, 2018 9:50:27 GMT 10
Tute, your ++ they are someplace else…. But you best see Pedro on that score ++ is very appreciated by...Pedro!! As you (may) imply, Pedro posts are CERTAINLY NOT the silliest, nonsensical nonsense!!! There are (out there!!) many BETTER/WORSE example of...of...let US say write that...well...It is better I do not upset those that vehemently PRETEND to believe in WHAT THEY say/write!!
|
|
You’ve just moved above from above when you said 'in the real world of the physical senses, there is no evidence' to 'over-whelming weight of evidence' to '...given zero evidence...'. So which is it, do we have evidence or is that not allowed? But, if there is an over-whelming weight of evidence, how the hell would you know, apart from your senses? 
