Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 5:06 AM
49 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 46 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
32Next
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 361 of 468 (631200)
08-30-2011 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Panda
08-30-2011 11:20 PM


IGNORE THIS!
The only thing you ignored is specifying where I was dishonest; especially when I included references and numbers of a known text.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Panda, posted 08-30-2011 11:20 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 362 of 468 (631201)
08-30-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 10:49 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
IamJoseph,

I will respond to this message first because it is quick and easy to deal with this idiocy.

You comment was that the Hebrew Bible changed the universe.

These are your statements...

Stemming from Greek philosophy [Aristotle; Helenist flat earth, head bashing dieties, etc] which was KO'd with the superior theology, philosophy and science of the Hebrew bible which ushered in Creationism & Monotheism and changed the universe forever.

In fact the Hebrew bible stands unique among all other wiritngs; the NT is OLD because no one is discussing it. Head bashing dietes like Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mitraish and JC were toppled away when one Abram smashed the idols in his father's house. And the universe was changed forever.

My question : How exactly was the universe changed?

your reply : It is expanding. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

So, what you are telling me is that the change that the introduction of the Hebrew Bible has created on the universe is expansion.

Are you serious?

The introduction of the Hebrew Bible caused the expansion of the universe. What was it doing prior to the writing of this book?

Can you supply the data showing any evidence of this?

my comment - Also, considering that there are people on this Earth who have not even heard of the book

your reply - No?

I will assume from that reply that you believe that the Old Testament is known to every human being on earth. Is that correct.

Check this link : http://www.mifami.org/eLibrary/Uncontacted_Amazon_Tribe.htm

It is one of many articles regarding uncontacted tribes. This particular group is in the Amazonian Jungle. They have had no known contact with any outsiders.

Do you believe that somewhere amongst those huts is a copy of the old Testament?

There are people on earth who have not heard of your favourite book.

It may be a bit painful for you to hear this, but there are plenty of people who do know about your favourite book and think it is a work of fiction. Sorry to tell you this but more people believe it is fiction that believe it is true. I know this will come as a blow to you as you seem to see it all so clearly but it is the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 10:49 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 12:00 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2013 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 363 of 468 (631205)
08-30-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Butterflytyrant
08-30-2011 8:33 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
You are missing the common creationist habit of altering the story to fit with known science.

No, actually I'm quite aware of some who stoop so low. They compromise the scriptures, thinking that it needs defending, when in truth it stands up just fine on its own. But people are people and there are bad apples in every lot. Pointing this out does nothing to aid the discussion.

This does not violate the second rule. Tiamat was made of earth (he was a god so he can be made of anything).

Except now we have the suggestion that planet formation is the result of god's dying. Also I think you should read the myth again and pay particular attention to the quote below. FYI Tiamat was a "she."

quote:
"With his unsparing mace he crushed her skull. (130) When the arteries of her blood he had severed,"

As you can see by the text, her body was made up of skull bone, arteries, and blood (not earth as you suggest). You also should notice that all through the epic there are directional winds coming from the North, South, East, and West. There are storms and oceans etc... This is a big problem if it is Tiamat's body that was used to create the earth. How are directions like these possible before the Earth was formed, without a "globe" with North and south axis' and what contained the oceans?

You have read the scripture incorrectly. How closed minded of you.Again, the female deity in question was made from earth. This supports the story. What is actually meant by milk lake, we now know from correct interpretation is merely water.

quote:
there is a Zulu myth in which people go in search of the milk-lake under the earth, from where the milk is absorbed by the grassroots so that the cows and goats have milk from the earth. Where else could the milk come from? Our own flesh is earth; even the name Adam means 'earth'. All creatures are earth. Fire too, lives in the earth, which sometimes spits it out when in anger. Fire comes out of wood, so it, too, must come from the earth. Wind too, it is believed, comes out of caves in the earth. Thus all four elements come out of the earth.?

I'll tell you what, you produce for me the actual Zulu transliteration that shows "milk really means water" and I'll give you that comment. But in the mean time how about you explain fire coming from wood rather than consuming wood, and also caves being the earths source for wind?

You have misinterpreted the scripture again. We now know that this story (which is actually fact because it has been around for thousands of years and heaps of people believed it) refers to the first people..

Again show me the transliteration. How do you misinterpret the statement, "She married the sun and bore two son, twins?" The story does not say that Changing Woman was a god, so how exactly does a human procreate with the physical sun anyway? Honestly I'm bored with this particular conversation. I have at least shown you that my analysis of three of them held up under close scrutiny. If I were more in to it I could go on and do the others. But I'm not. Perhaps another time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 8:33 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 364 of 468 (631207)
08-31-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Butterflytyrant
08-30-2011 11:42 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
quote:
So, what you are telling me is that the change that the introduction of the Hebrew Bible has created on the universe is expansion.

Are you serious?


No, I did not say that and it is not logical to see that in my post. I gave that reason only for showing that the universe is ever changing, citing the example of Hubble's expansion discovery. This proves the validity of Genesis which declares the universe as finite before that term was coined: there was a BEGINNING.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 11:42 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by bluescat48, posted 08-31-2011 12:20 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 368 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-31-2011 2:28 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 365 of 468 (631213)
08-31-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 12:00 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
That there was a beginning, in no way, gives any validity to genesis or any other creation myth.

Why People Believe Weird Things pg129
Spoken Edict Creation Story "The world sprung into being at the command of a god" (Egyptians, Hebrews, Maidu Indians, Mayans, Sumerians)

All these stories contain a god who spoke the universe into existence, the point is they were not all the same story or the same god.
Why should the Hebrew (Judaic-Christian) story have any more validity than any of the others.

Edited by bluescat48, : Typpppooo//

Edited by bluescat48, : Typooo

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : The edit ain't working

Edited by bluescat48, : ?????

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : I give up


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 12:00 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 366 of 468 (631221)
08-31-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 10:45 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
IamJoseph,

Not only did I study it, but I also never opened mouth wide and said AAH. Be assured all of your blondly accepted assertions will be shown as ludicrous.

They are not my assertions. I am not a physicist. They are the theories and hypothoses of some of the most brilliant physicists today. I am sure you are qualified to stand against them all.

You forgot about Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose. Somewhat greater than Hawkings - and they all support a universe source! The likes of Hawkings and Dawkins do not support a finite universe - guess why!

I think with this reply, the last shred of hope i had that you have anything valid to say disappeared.

Ok, so you think that Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose are greater than Hawking. And you add the bonus that they all believed in a universe source. Of course you do not supply any references for your claims so they are most likely things you hope are true.

Do you have any idea of how science works?

One person has an idea, they test that idea tro the best of their abilities, if it stands up to the tests of the time and no other better theory exists, then that theory is accepted. Until someone comes along and disproves or improves that theory. This is what has happened to the scientists you mentioned.

Do you do any research or do you just type what you hope is true and pray that you are debating morons?

Newton - 1642 - 1727 << this bit is quite important <<
(source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton)

You are correct in calling him a great scientist. He was a great scientist for his time.

His theories for the universe were supported for three centuries.

Then they were superceded by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.

In 1911, he had calculated that, based on his new theory of general relativity, light from another star would be bent by the Sun's gravity. That prediction was claimed confirmed by observations made by a British expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. International media reports of this made Einstein world famous. On 7 November 1919, the leading British newspaper The Times printed a banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown". (Much later, questions were raised whether the measurements had been accurate enough to support Einstein's theory.)
(source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Cosmology)

Einstein - 1879 - 1955 <(source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)

You are correct in saying that Einstein was a brilliant scientist. What you missed is that Einstein was a brilliant scientist for his time

In 1917 (<

In 1917, Einstein applied the General theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a whole. He wanted the universe to be eternal and unchanging, but this type of universe is not consistent with relativity. To fix this, Einstein modified the general theory by introducing a new notion, the cosmological constant. With a positive cosmological constant, the universe could be an eternal static sphere.

Einstein believed a spherical static universe is philosophically preferred, because it would obey Mach's principle. He had shown that general relativity incorporates Mach's principle to a certain extent in frame dragging by gravitomagnetic fields, but he knew that Mach's idea would not work if space goes on forever. In a closed universe, he believed that Mach's principle would hold. Mach's principle has generated much controversy over the years.

The Static Universe or Einsteins Universe theory -
(Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe)

A static universe or "Einstein universe" is one in which space is neither expanding nor contracting. Albert Einstein proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology in 1917. He added a positive cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the attractive effects of gravity on ordinary matter, which would otherwise cause the universe to either collapse or expand forever. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is in fact not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. According to Gamow this led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".

Even after Hubble's observations, Fritz Zwicky proposed that a static universe could still be viable if there was an alternative explanation of redshift due to a mechanism that would cause light to lose energy as it traveled through space, a concept that would come to be known as "tired light". However, subsequent cosmological observations have shown that this model is not a viable alternative either, leading nearly all astrophysicists to conclude that the static universe is not the correct model of our universe.

Some of Einsteins theories regarding the universe have been superceded. Better theories and theories combined with the General Theory of Relativity have been established.

In comes your next scientist...

Roger Penrose - 1931 - (at least this scientist is still alive, he is 80 now)
(Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose)

This guy is a great scientist too. In 1988 he recieved the Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.

You really need to read your sources.

I take it you respect and believe in this scientists work? You used him as a source and have said he is greater than Hawking.

You may be interested in reading one of his latest research projects (he worked with a second scientist, Gurzadyan).

His published paper is titled 'Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity'

His work is based on concentric circles found in WMAP data of the CMB sky, of an earlier universe existing before the Big Bang of our own present universe. Isnt that strange. Notice the bit about before the big bang?

That must be embarrassing for you.

He does disagree with Stephen Hawking's current Grand Design theory. He has an apposing theory of his own. This is how science works. I already supplied you with a few links to Hawking's Theory. His theory does not superced Einsteins, it combines the Theory of Relativity with Quantum Theory. Penrose' also helped to imporve Eisnteins theory.

In 1969, he conjectured the cosmic censorship hypothesis. This proposes (rather informally) that the universe protects us from the inherent unpredictability of singularities (such as the one in the centre of a black hole) by hiding them from our view behind an event horizon. This form is now known as the "weak censorship hypothesis"; in 1979, Penrose formulated a stronger version called the "strong censorship hypothesis". Together with the BKL conjecture and issues of nonlinear stability, settling the censorship conjectures is one of the most important outstanding problems in general relativity.

(source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose)

The lesson here is that newer theories pop up fairly regularly. They are tested, then disgarded or altered if they do not stand up to confirm the hypothosis. Last week I tested two hypothoses regarding a certain species of marine snails for some research I am doing. Both of my hypothoses were blown out of the water. I managed to accumulate a huge amount of totally random data that lead me to the conclusion that the two factors I was testing had no effect on the behavior of the snails. All this does is lead me closer to the truth. The theories of the scientists you have mentioned have either

(source : http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf)

None of these scientists is greater than Hawking. It is impossible to judge this really. They were each doing brilliant work with the resources thay had at the time.

Oh, I should cover the last bit too...

The likes of Hawkings and Dawkins do not support a finite universe - guess why!

I can guess at why. Hawkings supports his theories because he is a fucking genius. He has been wrong in the past and freely admits it. One very common part of being a scientist, propbably more common in the world of theoretical physics is being wrong. Why do you thin that some leading scientists may come up with a few theories theories in their entire career. Because they have spent decades working on it. First of all they have spent many years studying to get to the point where they can start coming up with new ideas. Then they come up with lots of ideas that dont even make it to hypothoses. Then they test these hypothoses, most fail quickly. Some will require further study. They study them and improve their hypothoses for years more. Then, if all goes well and someone was not working on the same thing and beat them to it, they may get a theory out of it. It is possible that their theory could be debunked by newer research a week after it was published.

Dawkins is a biologist. Not a cosmologist. I can find no quote from him anywhere that says he believes in an infinite universe. Care to supply your link?

Stephen Hawking quote - If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was what happened before the beginning?

your reply - There is no 'IF' here. Before the universe existed the universe never existed - including all the universe's components. A finite cannot cntain an infinite. Which part is confusing?

Forgive me if I speak on Dr Stephen Hawkings behalf in defense of his comment. If this universe had a beginning, it is a valid question to ask, what happened before the beginning of this universe. You are correct in saying 'before the universe existed the universe never existed'. So what existed before this universe? I believe the scientist you mentioned, Penrose has some new ideas for you in this area. Or, you can read into Hawking's alternate ideas as well. Which part of this is confusing?

The question has no alignment with its inclusion as a responsa. If we do not know what your dentist did before removing your tooth - does it mean your dentist never existed? The madness continues:...

Knock-knock! Time is a post universe phenomenon. It would be ubsurd and a violation of the universe's finite factor in anything contained in this universe existed before the universe existed. The madness continues:

Why not an unsubstantiated conjuring without any scientific basis?

I call it madness; see above re time. The thesis totally abandons the finite factor again.

Then pray tell why are stars accounted as 15B years - how many stars existed 250 B years ago - and why not if time is infinite!? The madness:

So matter and energy are also infinite - how many objects did these infinite phenomenons produce in their infinite time period: list one? What about pineapples?

Why then have you been touting time? Duh!

Its not philosophical but one of math and physics. There is no need to go back to earlier times; the universe is dated as approx 13.7 B years. Finite! Yes/no?

Fine. In a finite model, we cannot depict anything in this universe existing before this universe: yes/no? In an infinite universe we would most certainly be able to depict at least something which existed before - e.g. background radiation; different colors; square pinepples; etc. But no luck! Yes/no?

Correct, but against Apion: a changing universe proves only a finite one. Only something not subject to change can be infinite. The madness will continue!

No impact. BTW, Galaxies are homonogised and expand in equal direction and velocity. But still no impact here.

You are chopping off your own foot. The universe is changing, proving it is finite.

The singularity factor is incorrect. No actions can occur with an indivisible and irreducible lone item. This is the premise introduced in Genesis and is scientifically irrefutable. The madness does not stop: Correction. Laws would not have yet emerged, rather than break down. You are observing the universe retrospectively. Gravity yet did not exust because no laws of gravity existed, nor any mass bodies which gravity is derived of.

And everything we see relates to that which is evolved, referring to time, and measuring only a 13.7B period. Conclusion: finite.

Who!!!??? Wow - did the Pope really write Genesis?

Its been said Einstein is toppled by QM, but this is not correct. Einstein based his equations by inserting and allowing an 'X' factor, namely there is a componenet of unknown factors, but which do not effect the whole premise.

History is proof of finite. Once there was no history!

Science is a faculty which explains observable and testable laws. Once there were no laws - and no stars, energy, light, time or space. You have to show us trillion billion year stars incumbent in a finite universe to impress! You cannot. Need a more powerful telescope, perhaps?

Them thar Helenists' flatulent earth was KO'd by Genesis - yet you harken to them in prostration mode!?

The reverse applies. Not time or space existed before the universe. Infinite stuff cannot be measured.

No sir! It means there were many small bubbles in the one big bubble called the universe. I don't say AAH! to what is clearly slight of hand casino science.Its like saying the surface of a circle is infinite - it is not: the circle ends when the same ground is covered again! Otherwise everything is infinite, including a 2 meter rope: just make a U-turn at the end!

Your explanation does not validate multi-universes. MV only pushes the goal post further back.

This infers external input of a purposeful and impacting kind and negates internal random impact! Try to sing out of tune purposefully.

QM has proven to be definitive, not as first thought.

How? If we discovered anything more than 15B years then I missed it. Please demonstrate your assertion?

No, they do not. Black holes are less old than the universe!

Its the ssme old story. Only now we have a new kind of fundamentalist theology with the same anxst as those who have been beaten to disappear before.

All of that random and inane drivel is not a response to anything I have said.

You are replying to a lecture given by Dr Stephen Hawking. It was given in 2010 and is one of the most recent theories.

Thats this Stephen Hawkings -

First Class Honours degree at Oxford.

Doctorate from Cambridge.

Cosmology Research at Cambridge under the supervision of Denis Sciama.
- Research Fellow at Gonville and Caius College.
- Professional Fellow at Gonville and Caius College.
- Institute of Astronomy in 1973
- Professor of Gravitational Physics at Cambridge in 1977
- Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge since 1979. This position had previously been held by Sir Isaac Newton in 1669

1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela
2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States

Who wrote these books -

Singularities in Collapsing Stars and Expanding Universes with Dennis William Sciama, 1969 Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics Vol 1 No.1
The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with George Ellis
The Nature of Space and Time with Roger Penrose, foreword by Michael Atiyah
The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind, (with Abner Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Roger Penrose)
Information Loss in Black Holes
God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History
A Brief History of Time
Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays
The Universe in a Nutshell
On The Shoulders of Giants. The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy
A Briefer History of Time, coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow
The Grand Design, coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow

He has been studying in this field since 1965. Thats 46 years of research.

Just to make sure I take your arguements against his studies seriously. What qualifications do you have? When you publish your work that so quickly disproves the culmination of over 4 decades of study from one of the worlds most reknown theoretical physicists, can you let me know? I would like to read it.

Also in your rebuttal, you argued againts Emmanuel Kant on philosophy and against Einstein and time theories.

Nice work.

I think my favourite bit was this...

Hawkings quote - Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun.

your reply - The singularity factor is incorrect. No actions can occur with an indivisible and irreducible lone item. This is the premise introduced in Genesis and is scientifically irrefutable. The madness does not stop:

You are attempting to correct Stephen Hawkings on singularities. Maybe you should read his work first. It is still current today. It is called the Hawking Penrose Singularity Theorum. Recognise the second name? The work he did on singularities was with Penrose, the guy you said was greater than Hawking.

I think you may have just crowned yourself the biggest douche here.

I have not seen anyone attempt to refute Stephen Hawking (on singularities, the Big Bang, time and physics), Immanuel Kant (on philosophy), Einstein (on the Theory of Relativity and time) and Penrose (on singularities and time) all in one post.

You sure like to pick tough battles.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 10:45 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 4:30 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 367 of 468 (631222)
08-31-2011 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Dawn Bertot
08-30-2011 11:28 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Dawn Bertot,

I am going to chalk this up to another issue with your definitions of words.

I know from reading many other posts on this matter that you will not believe that you are incorrect in your interpretation but I will tell you anyway.

Believe me there is a point to this madness. I sorry but I dont think you are seeing very simple points. If the recieve is not ABLE to recieve the response, (for any reason) then the sender is UNABLE to respond irregardless if they sent the message. therefore unable. Nice try though

If the reciever does not get the response, for any reason, it does not mean that the response is not given. I will give you a really simple example. I just went outside and screamed 'Dawn Bertot does not get it' as loud as possible. I was willing to give that response. I was able to give that response. You did not receive that response. This means that communication failed. The response was given.I was not unable to respond. I actually performed the action of response. I performed the action of response to your comments. I performed an actual physical and audible response. I was willing and able to respond.

Do you get it?

Probably not.

But that is your problem, not mine. I can only explain things to you as best i can. If you choose to ignore the simple explanation, what point is there in continuing to show different examples of how you are incorrect.

The expression "communication has failed", means that they are unable to recieve the info, correct. Remember though the enterprise is party in the process as well. You cant only look at it from the other ships perspective. It takes two to tango. If the other ship is not aware of thier communication, then from the enterprises perspective, they are unable to respond

The only way your scenerio would work is if neither ship was tyring to contact eachother or there was no situation at all

You have only proven my point here. Communication is different from response. Communication does require and interaction between two (or more). A response can be undetected by the target. That is the key difference you are missing.

As for plant responses - It is a chemical response, terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics etc. If you were eating a certain plant, it would respond by releasing these chemicals. It is a response that you would most likely not detect (depending on the plant). This is another example. The plant is willing and able to respond. But you are not aware of the response. The response has occured.

The words UNABLE and UNWILLING have to have meaning to both parties, otherwise it makes no sense. Think about it logically Spock is the one making the suggestion in the first place. unable has to have meaning to the originator as well

Unable does have a meaning for both. The ship may be responding in 5000 different ways that the Enterprise cannot detect. This does not mean that the first ship is unwilling or unable to respond. It means they are unable to communicate. Which is different from being unable to respond.

Correct. However, if the enterprise is wishing for a reception of that response, then from the enterprises perspective they were unable, no matter the failed reason. Both parties are a part of the scenario

This is an example of communication. Which is different from a response.

Maybe what we are discussing here will assit you and IMJ in that discussion. I hope so

In a recent post IMJ disagreed (calling their statements madness among many other things) with Stephen Hawking, Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein and Roger Penrose. All in one post. I doubt anyone can discuss anything with IMJ and get any benefit from it.

No amount of logic or rangling will allow you to go past the only options, there are no others

The key issue is the definition of response. From what I can tell, you belive that response and communicate are the same thing. They are not. The four options I supplied are valid. No logic or rangling required. With the correct understanding of the two terms, it is not complicated.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-30-2011 11:28 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-01-2011 8:39 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 368 of 468 (631223)
08-31-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 12:00 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
how about we run through that again.

this time try not to avoid answering the actual questions.

Stemming from Greek philosophy [Aristotle; Helenist flat earth, head bashing dieties, etc] which was KO'd with the superior theology, philosophy and science of the Hebrew bible which ushered in Creationism & Monotheism and changed the universe forever.

In fact the Hebrew bible stands unique among all other wiritngs; the NT is OLD because no one is discussing it. Head bashing dietes like Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mitraish and JC were toppled away when one Abram smashed the idols in his father's house. And the universe was changed forever.

My question : How exactly was the universe changed?

your reply : It is expanding. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

The question was, what changes did the introduction of the Hebrew Bible have on the universe.

Your statements again -

Stemming from Greek philosophy [Aristotle; Helenist flat earth, head bashing dieties, etc] which was KO'd with the superior theology, philosophy and science of the Hebrew bible which ushered in Creationism & Monotheism and changed the universe forever.

In fact the Hebrew bible stands unique among all other wiritngs; the NT is OLD because no one is discussing it. Head bashing dietes like Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mitraish and JC were toppled away when one Abram smashed the idols in his father's house. And the universe was changed forever.

You have stated that the Hebrew Bible has changed the universe forever.

The question, once again, is :

What changes, specifically, did the Hebrew Bible make to the universe?

I will word it differently :

The universe has been changed by the Hebrew Bible how exactly?

or how about this way :

What changes have been detected since the Hebrew Bible has been written have been attributed to that book?

One more time to make sure you understand the question you are being asked :

The universe has been altered in some way, and has been altered forever (I assume you mean altered for all future time) by the Hebrew Bible, what is the alteration (change) that has been detected?

your answer that the universe has expanded does not answer that question. Unless you can show me that this expansion began or has been altered in some way with the introduction of the Hebrew Bible.

Have you given any thought to my great debate challenge yet?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 12:00 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 4:07 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2013 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 369 of 468 (631229)
08-31-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Panda
08-30-2011 10:38 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
And GEN 1:6 states that it took 3 days to make the heavens and the earth and in GEN 2:4 it states that it only took 1 day.
So, the bible also fails the contradictory test..

Gen. 1:6-13 Is not describing the forming of the "planet" earth, but the formation of the land masses and the seas and the atmosphere. Verse 1 describes the "planet" Earth already existing before the events of your verse 6. The planet Earth existed by the end of day one, read the text, the Earth had no form and was shrouded in darkness. Since there are three types of "heavens" in scripture you must use the context to tell if it is talking about the atmosphere, outer space, or the presence of God. In this case the context makes it clear it is talking about the atmosphere. The passage you referenced in Genesis 2 refers to "the day" the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, as meaning the time period, not a literal 24 hour period. The context of 1:29 says the end of creation took place on day six. And just in case we mistook its meaning, it is confirmed in scripture again in Exodus 20:11

The bible states that the earth sits upon pillars. This has easily been shown to be false.
So, the bible also fails the scientific test.
(I would have mentioned that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth - but, somehow, the bible no longer says that it does. I guess that they released an updated version of the bible that included several corrections.).

Incorrect again. The Bible does NOT mean the earth sits upon pillars literally. In fact it says otherwise. For example in Job 9:6 he describes God's power saying: "He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble" Pillars represent the most solid portions of a large building and therefore it is meant as a metaphor that God alone possesses that power. And just so we wouldn't think he really believed the earth rested on literal pillars Job went on to say in 26:7: "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." Job is saying that the north (pole) is not conected to anything but empty space, and of course NOTHING supports the earth.

See these are obvious examples of scriptures twisted completely out of context, its a desperate grasp at straws. Any fair examination of the text in its context will reveal this.

The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood. So, the bible also fails the historic test..

Wow, now you just opened up a whole other can of worms. This is one of my favorite topics, and I can present tons of evidence for a global flood. However I'm afraid that the sysops would probably scold us if we discussed it here. Is there a thread you would be willing to discuss the topic in more detail?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Panda, posted 08-30-2011 10:38 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 3:17 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 375 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 6:03 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 384 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 4:28 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(4)
Message 370 of 468 (631231)
08-31-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Just being real
08-31-2011 2:43 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
The Bible does NOT mean the earth sits upon pillars literally.

Yeah, only an idiot would take the Bible literally when it contradicts established scientific facts.

Now, about that book of Genesis ... ? But I notice you've been working on that, too. Apparently days aren't literally days, heaven can have at least three different meanings which you get to pick from at your own convenience ... but you're going to stick by the global flood? Why? --- it's complete bollocks.

In fact it says otherwise.

No. It says stuff like this ...

"When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm." --- Psalm 75

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and he had set the world upon them." --- I Samuel 2:8

... but it never says the pillars are a metaphor.

You could probably make Alice in Wonderland contain no errors if you just took enough of it non-literally. You could certainly do so for the Koran, so your criticisms of that work fall rather flat. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 2:43 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 4:00 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 371 of 468 (631240)
08-31-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Dr Adequate
08-31-2011 3:17 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
LOL! You obviously have no problem assessing the world's wisest document, the introducer of all laws the world turns on today and the first alphabetical book. Not to forget it also introduced the DAY to humanity!

I suppose LET THEIR BE LIGHT means clicking a switch on in the dark.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 372 of 468 (631241)
08-31-2011 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Butterflytyrant
08-31-2011 2:28 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
quote:
The question, once again, is :

What changes, specifically, did the Hebrew Bible make to the universe?


How hard did you try? How about these universe changers:

The universe is finite.

Creationism.

Monotheism.

The earth is not flat.

Light was a primordial product.

The first listing of life form groups - in their correct protocol

The furst/oldest recorded name.

The oldest active calendar.

The stars are unaccountable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-31-2011 2:28 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-31-2011 8:30 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 373 of 468 (631242)
08-31-2011 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Butterflytyrant
08-31-2011 1:45 AM


DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
Ok, so you think that Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose are greater than Hawking. And you add the bonus that they all believed in a universe source. Of course you do not supply any references for your claims so they are most likely things you hope are true.

Do you have any idea of how science works?


Give yourself a break: messing with the Hebrew bible because you can with the NT and Quran does not cut it - none have succeeded todate and not for lack of trying or obsession. You are not in good company here:

quote:
Sir Isaac Newton

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
Sir Issac Newton 1642-1727

Sir Isaac Newton was likely one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He made fundamental contributions to every major area of scientific and mathematical concern in his generation. He made revolutionary advances in mathematics, optics, physics, and astronomy. He actually invented the mathematic discipline known as calculus.
In addition to his unequaled mental capability, Newton was also an ardent Bible scholar who was very fluent in the ancient languages. He studied and translated the book of Daniel from the original Hebrew and his interpretations are the foundation of a book entitled, NEWTON'S PROPHECIES OF DANIEL, by the Oregon Institute Of Science and Medicine.
Regarding his perception of how God was working in the lives of men in revealing truths from the Word of God, Newton wrote:
"Amongst the Interpreters of the last age
there is scarce one of note who hath not made some
discovery worth knowing; and thence seem to gather
that God is about opening these mysteries.
The success of others put me upon considering it; and
if I have done anything which may be useful to following
writers, I have my design."
Newton's keen insight into Daniel's prophecies may be the greatest contribution he ever made.
http://www.pretribulation.com/isaac-newton.htm

________________________________________

________________________________________
Writings on Newton by Stephen David Snobelen
At the end of the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) initiated a revolution in science. At the end of the twentieth century, scholars began a revolution in the understanding of Newton. As Newton's long-concealed private papers on theology become increasingly accessible, students of Newton's thought are coming to see Newton as more than a scientist.
The author of the Principia mathematica was a true Renaissance man who spent decades delving in the secrets of alchemy and even longer studying the Bible, theology and church history. Leaving behind four million words on theology, Newton was one of the greatest lay theologians of his age. A study of Newton's theology and prophetic views illuminates the life of this great thinker and helps us understand his science.
This website provides downloadable academic papers (with some in pre-published form) that explore Newton's theology, prophetic views and the interaction between his science and his religion. These studies include substantial quotations from Newton's unpublished theological manuscripts. The most substantial upgrade involves the reordering and expansion of the list of papers on Newton’s theology.
http://www.isaac-newton.org/

The Religious Background and Religious Beliefs
of Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family and had a lifelong respect for his Jewish heritage. Around the time Einstein was eleven years old he went through an intense religious phase, during which time he followed Jewish religious precepts in detail, including abstaining from eating pork. During this time he composed several songs in honor of God. But during most of his life Einstein was not a practicing Jew.
Einstein was opposed to atheism. Various sources refer to him as a mostly non-practicing Jew, an agnostic, or simply as a person with an idiosyncratic personal worldview.
Einstein's Jewish background and upbringing were significant to him, and his Jewish identity was strong, increasingly so as he grew older. The simple appellation "agnostic" may not be entirely accurate, given his many expressions of belief in a Spinozan concept of Deity. Certainly the adult Einstein was not a kosher-keeping, synagogue-attending traditional adherent of Judaism. But it is accurate enough to call his religious affiliation "Jewish," with the understanding of the variety encompassed by such a label.
Although Einstein had a positive attitude toward religion, he was not active during adulthood in any organized religious group. He wrote of his belief in a noble "cosmic religious feeling" that enables scientists to advance human knowledge. One of Einstein's most famous quotes on the subject of science and religion is: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Einstein is said to have held a concept of God similar to that promulgated by Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Einstein studied Spinoza and identified with Spinoza both culturally and philosophically. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in 'Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.' This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: 'I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.' Einstein's famous epithet on the 'uncertainty principle' was 'God does not play dice.'"
Some writings by Einstein regarding religion are available on Cliff Walker's page "Albert Einstein on: Religion and Science," on the Positive Atheism website (URL: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm) and from St. Cloud State University physics department professor Arnold V. Lesikar's page: "Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion" (URL: http://einsteinandreligion.com/).

Primrose.
Religious views
Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,[21] and refers to himself as an atheist.[22] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."[23] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose



This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-31-2011 1:45 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-31-2011 8:10 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2013 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 374 of 468 (631247)
08-31-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Stile
08-30-2011 8:47 AM


Re: Too many competing experiences
In fact, it really only takes two different religions that can't be true at the same time to wash away this kind of subjective evidence... and yet, there are many, many more than that. Hundreds? Thousands?

You are welcome to think this, but it isn't true. The journey to the center of truth can take as simple a map as this:

1. Is there a God?
Is there reasonable evidence to support the existence of an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe? Answer- Yes
2. Has He spoken?
If He has spoken through one of the world's religions, since there are so many religions which are diametrically opposed to one another, can we weed it down to the right one? Answer- Yes with the following test:
A. Does it agree with known history?
B. Does it agree with known science?
C. Is it prophetically accurate?
D. Does it contradict itself?
Conclusion: Out of all the religions and religious writings of the world, only the Bible stands up to the four stage test. All other I have seen either fail, or don't take the test for fear of failing.
3. What did He say?
If He has left us a message, what was it? Answer- "Jesus" (Hebrews 1:2)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Stile, posted 08-30-2011 8:47 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 10:48 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1790 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 375 of 468 (631249)
08-31-2011 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Just being real
08-31-2011 2:43 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Most of your mistakes have been addressed by Dr. A in Message 370.

Just being real writes:

Incorrect again. The Bible does NOT mean the earth sits upon pillars literally.


Now this is where you went wrong when criticising the Quran.
The examples you gave are not meant to be taken literally.
If you find any other inconsistencies/contradictions/etc. in the Quran, then these are also not meant to be taken literally.

This rule also applies to the bible.
Obviously, it is difficult to find 2 christians that agree on which parts of the bible are literal and which parts are metaphorical.
But I am sure that if anyone believes the the the sun literally orbits the earth, then it will be moved to the 'metaphorical' pile eventually.

Just being real writes:

Panda writes:

The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood.


This is one of my favorite topics, and I can present tons of evidence for a global flood.

And yet you have been completely silent in threads which ask for that evidence.
The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
I think we can draw our own conclusions from that.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 2:43 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 5:00 PM Panda has responded

RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
32Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019