Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if Jesus and Satan were real?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 527 of 591 (727497)
05-18-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Blue
05-18-2014 3:02 PM


Re: Satan
You may be talking about the word 'calamity' but I am talking about the different word 'evil' that is used in Isaiah 45:7.
If Yahweh had wanted to use the word 'calamity' I'm sure he would have done so. But he did not. He used the word 'evil'.
That is a fact.
2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
You are commanded not to 'interpret' the bible , add to it or take away from it. I'm not 'hating' on the bible: I'm quoting it.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 3:02 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 3:38 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 529 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 3:43 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 530 of 591 (727506)
05-18-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Blue
05-18-2014 3:43 PM


Re: Satan
Did you miss Modulous' post above?
'Ra' translates as evil. In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of good and ra. The tree of good and disaster? It is clearly the tree of good and evil.
In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because the wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earth.
In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were wicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.
In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.
In Judges 2:11, the children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim.
In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him.
Source
The primary meaning of 'ra' is clearly 'evil'.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 3:43 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 4:25 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 534 of 591 (727513)
05-18-2014 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Blue
05-18-2014 4:30 PM


Re: Satan
The context is plain: good and evil.
Whoever heard of the phrase good and calamity?
I just did a quick word search in the text of the bible and 'good' and 'calmity' do not occure together in verse at all. 'Good' and 'evil' in the same verse occurs 98 times.
Isn't technology wonderful?
Stop hating on the bible
What is it about Christians that means they see disagreement as hate? I think you are wrong and I've shown why. How can that be hate?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 4:30 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 5:36 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 537 of 591 (727516)
05-18-2014 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by Blue
05-18-2014 5:32 PM


Re: Satan
Where does it read any of this...
2nd Chronicles 15:13 "That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Psalm 7:12 "If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready."
2Ki:15:16: Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Don't have nightmares.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 5:32 PM Blue has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 538 of 591 (727517)
05-18-2014 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Blue
05-18-2014 5:36 PM


Re: Satan
You ignore the the verifiable fact that calamity never appears in the same verse as good.
Not once in the entire bible.
It took me about 10 seconds to find that out. You are wrong to say that ra means calamity in Is 45:7 because in the context of the whole bible calamity never appears with good.
Calling me a hater and threatening to ignore me shows the paucity of your position. Unless you can provide a reasonable reason for interpreting ra as calamity (in contradiction to the context and tone of the entire bible) you are simply letting your preconceived notion that Yahweh did not creat evil colour your conclusions.
Put your bias to one side and look at the text with an open mind and you will see that Yahweh created everything in existence.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
All things include evil. Nothing exists that was not made by him. What do YOU think 'all things' means?
All the best.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 5:36 PM Blue has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 552 of 591 (727555)
05-19-2014 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by Blue
05-18-2014 11:47 PM


Re: God's cure-all : Rampant slaughter
I was trying to teach you about how the God of the bible is false.
No one is trying to prove your god is not real. Only that the characteristics you ascribe to him conflict with what the bible states.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 11:47 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 9:11 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 553 of 591 (727556)
05-19-2014 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by Blue
05-18-2014 11:56 PM


Re: Satan
Who would have thought dinosaurs were real 200 years ago?
Xenophanes (570-480 BC) wrote about fossils. Rather more than 200 years. And what is this missing 90,000 years (the middle Stone Age characterised by Aterian technology)?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Blue, posted 05-18-2014 11:56 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 9:14 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 561 of 591 (727603)
05-19-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Blue
05-19-2014 9:11 AM


Re: God's cure-all : Rampant slaughter
Another point, if you think I believe an atheist doesn't want to fit the God of the bible into a framework which does argue he doesn't exist you are crazy.
I have not argued that your god does not exist. My belief on that matter does not affect what the bibles says about Yahweh's abilities.
I have no interest in proving or disproving the existence of Yahweh because it is not scientifically possible to do so.
My point is that the bible clearly and contextually states that Yahweh creates both good and evil.
There is most definitely an agenda in this forum for atheists to show God does not exist.
Did you know the fellow who owns, run and moderates on this forum believes in God?
Just because we have some data about the 90,000 years doesn't mean it is sufficient to paint a perfect picture. There is plenty of discovery to be found including furthering the reality of the nephilim.
If we have some data about that time (and a quick look on wiki shows that we do) it is hardly 'missing'.
You are correct however that there is a significant amount that could be yet found about nephilim: just like unicorns mentioned in Isaiah 34:7
would of and would have serve the same function. You really don't know what you are talking about do you?
Would, could and should 'of' is grammatically wrong: 'have' should be used in all cases. And it's 'per se' not 'per say'.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 9:11 AM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 11:30 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 562 of 591 (727604)
05-19-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 555 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 9:13 AM


Re: Satan
There is a flaw in your logic here, I think.
If God originally made us to be able to fly and then downgraded us not to be able to fly would our free will be more or less restricted than if we never could fly?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 9:13 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 11:57 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 564 of 591 (727608)
05-19-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Blue
05-19-2014 11:30 AM


Re: God's cure-all : Rampant slaughter
Fair enough.
All the best.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 11:30 AM Blue has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 567 of 591 (727636)
05-19-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 11:57 AM


Re: Satan
You said that there was a difference in not being able to fly (with regard to free will) and not being able to do harm (with regard to free will).
My point was that if we were never able to do harm it would not compromise our free will to do harm in the same was as never being able to fly would not compromise our free will to fly.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 11:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 1:45 PM Larni has replied
 Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 2:32 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 576 of 591 (727660)
05-19-2014 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 2:32 PM


Re: Satan
How is a mental block different from a physical block? It's all god magicking our ability to take an action.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 2:32 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 4:22 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 577 of 591 (727661)
05-19-2014 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Blue
05-19-2014 1:45 PM


Re: Satan
Nice of him to invent murder and rape for us to do. If he had not given us the capacity to do so we could have kept on living our lives sans murder and rape.
But he chose to invent rape and murder. If he had made us proof against murder and rape it would be much better. Although it would impinge on the rights of murderers to rape and murder.
That's the thing. By allowing people to do rape and murder your god is putting the rights of rapists and murderers to murder and rape over the rights of normal people not to be murdered and raped.
Some one has to have their rights curtailed. As it stands though, the rights of normal people not to raped and murdered are frequently denied (by rapists and murderers).
If I were in charge I would have curtailed the rights of murderers and rapists to ply their dirty trade but I guess Yahweh wanted a world with rape and murder in it (as he created it that way).
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 1:45 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 3:53 PM Larni has replied
 Message 580 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 4:04 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 579 of 591 (727664)
05-19-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Blue
05-19-2014 3:53 PM


Re: Satan
He invented everything.
He specifically invented humans with the capacity to be corrupted by one of his inventions (a talking snake).
But if you are so narrow minded that you can't imagine your god to be bigger than you imagine him to be I guess nothing will convince you that god is not restrained by human morality.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 3:53 PM Blue has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 4:15 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 582 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 4:20 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 586 of 591 (727672)
05-19-2014 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Blue
05-19-2014 4:04 PM


Re: Satan
Rape and murder are a property of free will
Apart from when god orders rape and murder. There he is using rape and murder to take away the rights of people not to be raped and murdered.
If God managed us/controlled us he couldn't judge us.
If god had not made us with the capaciry to do evil he would not need to judge us. Why not take away our ability to decide to go to hell by being evil? He could have done it: he can do anything.
You are a hypocrite.
I know this is not aimed at me but I do have to take exception. I've 'known' Modulous on this site for nearly ten years and hypocracy is not one of his character traits. Would you care to specify his hypocracy?
All the best.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Blue, posted 05-19-2014 4:04 PM Blue has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024