100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Other realities: To give an example, an astral body is not considered to be "physical." There is also an "astral" reality. But this is not necessarily to be considered a separate "universe" as it is actually part of and very connected to this physical universe. As far as I know, our physical (popular and public) science has not recognized the astral world and astral "material" as even being "real." Therefor, a discussion about them with someone who insists on remaining within the boundary of physical science would be quite pointless. fine. then i'll consider that you are bowing out of our exchange of views. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found something interesting: The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, according to Drs. Karl Pootle and Yumble Frick, co-authors of the study. The analysis is expected to have profound implications on the theoretical underpinnings of many popular religions…. “Biodiversity is the primary stumbling block,” said Dr. Pootle. “Whoever created this cacophony of species would have had to be infinitely powerful and infinitely creative, but also infinitely schizophrenic to come up with the myriad different solutions to identical problems that the creators of the universe have. Either that, or we’re looking at a different kind of process altogether”…. “If you’re one guy designing a universe, why come up with twenty different ways of tackling the same issue?” Pootle said. “If you’re omnipotent, presumably you know perfectly well whatever the one solution is that will work best, and you go with that. The fact that the world obviously doesn’t work that way is what led us first to the committee theory. The plants and animals that inhabit the Earth show the kinds of random and incoherent thinking that can only otherwise be found in the products of design committees where there’s a lot of CYA and turf protection going on.” http://www.avantnews.com/news/200217-study-proves-universe-created-by-committee  Actually, I think I might have contemplated this possibility if it had been an option when I was 11 and getting into trouble in confirmation class.  The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, This falls in line with my world view of how the universe was created or manifested for sure. Not only that but the "petty infighting" is rampant. What would make anyone think that "heaven" was a peaceful place when our world (a manifestation of theirs) is not? Look at the way governments are run. Same thing. Large companies and corporations. Same thing. It is the nature of the beast..(the universe.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote: The joke cannot cause the smile. If that were the case then everyone who ever heard that same joke would have no choice but to smile. This is what you are offering as evidence to support your objection? "The joke cannot cause the smile," because "if that were the case, then everyone who ever heard that same joke would have no choice but to smile?"  How does my smiling at a joke depend upon or necessitate that? Those things are in no way dependent upon nor indicative of one another. Very simple. To claim that a joke "caused you to smile" is not taking responsibility for your own participation and decisions in the matter or for your personal feelings. Its like claiming that another person caused you to be unhappy, or angry. It is the beginning of blaming everyone and everything else for all of your own personal reactions to things. "He made me angry and I shot him, but its not my fault because he made me angry." Take responsibility. Take some credit. Your 'sense of humor' caused you to smile. You could just as well have been insulted by that joke. It depends on how your mind works. Some jokes are funny to some people and not funny to other people. True. How does that fact support your objection? It seems to be further evidence for mine, because... That is why different jokes cause different people to smile. No it is different unique interpretations, decisions and sense of humor that cause the smile, not the jokes. It is the different reactions (thoughts) that cause the smile. You assertion that a joke causes a smile is absurd. I stand by that statement. Without the joke, the smile was not. Define 'absurd'. I can garauntee you that it does not mean 'differs from JB's opinion'. Show me how it is absurd. Absurd: It is ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So let me put it this way. Where does the “character” go when it dies? Well, since it’s an integral part of the game (i.e. the game is really just bits in the computer and the character is a subset of that) the character doesn’t really “go” anywhere. Those memory locations just get reused. Just like the components of our bodies are a subset of the components of the universe and get reused. I'm an organ donor so I don't think the pieces that make me or memory positions that store me are me. I'm a combination or a pattern- wipe that away and I'm gone; take the pieces apart and they're just generic pieces. Now unless you are able to comprehend that single, most fundamental concept of the whole philosophy, then all the extrapolations and corollaries and conclusions based on that concept will be equally incomprehensible. I'm obviously made of pieces because if you take just a few of them away you can change who I am but as that's the change I'd not longer be me but rather someone else. There's a fuzzy line between how I grow into being someone else all the time and how just switching who I am would be something drastically different but I don't think that's a line anyone doesn't intuitively understand well enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other realities: To give an example, an astral body is not considered to be "physical." There is also an "astral" reality. But this is not necessarily to be considered a separate "universe" as it is actually part of and very connected to this physical universe. As far as I know, our physical (popular and public) science has not recognized the astral world and astral "material" as even being "real." Therefor, a discussion about them with someone who insists on remaining within the boundary of physical science would be quite pointless. fine. then i'll consider that you are bowing out of our exchange of views. No, you did when you made the rules that our exchange of views should stay inside the boundaries you defined as "known science" and the physical world, and then you asked if there was a non-physical universe. How, after that, could I possibly proceed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/18/09 07:18 AM
|
|
I found something interesting: The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, according to Drs. Karl Pootle and Yumble Frick, co-authors of the study. The analysis is expected to have profound implications on the theoretical underpinnings of many popular religions…. “Biodiversity is the primary stumbling block,” said Dr. Pootle. “Whoever created this cacophony of species would have had to be infinitely powerful and infinitely creative, but also infinitely schizophrenic to come up with the myriad different solutions to identical problems that the creators of the universe have. Either that, or we’re looking at a different kind of process altogether”…. “If you’re one guy designing a universe, why come up with twenty different ways of tackling the same issue?” Pootle said. “If you’re omnipotent, presumably you know perfectly well whatever the one solution is that will work best, and you go with that. The fact that the world obviously doesn’t work that way is what led us first to the committee theory. The plants and animals that inhabit the Earth show the kinds of random and incoherent thinking that can only otherwise be found in the products of design committees where there’s a lot of CYA and turf protection going on.” http://www.avantnews.com/news/200217-study-proves-universe-created-by-committee Actually, I think I might have contemplated this possibility if it had been an option when I was 11 and getting into trouble in confirmation class. The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, This falls in line with my world view of how the universe was created or manifested for sure. Not only that but the "petty infighting" is rampant. What would make anyone think that "heaven" was a peaceful place when our world (a manifestation of theirs) is not? Look at the way governments are run. Same thing. Large companies and corporations. Same thing. It is the nature of the beast..(the universe.) I have asserted that we cannot rule out intelligent design in this universe and I have asserted that there are many designers and I have asserted that even we are designers. I see how governments are run, I see how corporations are run, I see how the world is run and if that is the way it is in this reality, then I can only assume that is the way it is everywhere else, and even in the place people might call "heaven." It is also known that I have not ruled out that non-human intelligent life probably exists in this galaxy and probably on this earth. Some of these creatures may well look and act like 'demons.' Let's just say I try to keep an open mind to the possibilities.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, you did when you made the rules that our exchange of views should stay inside the boundaries you defined as "known science" and the physical world, and then you asked if there was a non-physical universe. How, after that, could I possibly proceed? well you just did procede. and i've certainly not bowed out as we are both still engaged in the exchange. i never used the term "known science" as you must realize by now that i think that nothing can be known. nor have i used the term "physical world". you asked me to define "physical universe" so i did my best using my own mind. all i can recall ever doing with regards to our exchange is to answer your questions and repsond to your comments as best i can. the answers and responses seem to be unacceptable to you so now you ask, "how after that, could i possibly procede?" only you can answer that question bean. i only know how i'll procede which is to reply to posts here as i consider them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/18/09 08:00 AM
|
|
No, you did when you made the rules that our exchange of views should stay inside the boundaries you defined as "known science" and the physical world, and then you asked if there was a non-physical universe. How, after that, could I possibly proceed? well you just did procede. and i've certainly not bowed out as we are both still engaged in the exchange. i never used the term "known science" as you must realize by now that i think that nothing can be known. nor have i used the term "physical world". you asked me to define "physical universe" so i did my best using my own mind. all i can recall ever doing with regards to our exchange is to answer your questions and repsond to your comments as best i can. the answers and responses seem to be unacceptable to you so now you ask, "how after that, could i possibly procede?" only you can answer that question bean. i only know how i'll procede which is to reply to posts here as i consider them. I'm sorry if I misquoted you exactly. But I asked you to define "universe" not "physical universe." You did say: "..... let's talk possibilities with science upermost in mind. scientific methodology. evidence that can be tested using scientific methodology." That translates as "known or popular science" for me. BUT if you are willing to explore some subjective science I'm all for it. You also said: firstly, imagination is imagination. reality is reality. That implies that reality has been defined and agreed upon in all aspects, but we have had many conversations on this club about what is reality and what is real vs subjective or illusion and personal realities etc. I just did not want to go there again in this thread. You said: well you bring up "reality" and then decide you'll "not get into that discussion". fine. Truth is, I love discussing reality, but to do so would have been getting way off the track from the conversation of this thread. I notice that where we have a problem is in our word usage and understanding and the experience we are coming from. I have noticed this kind of language barrier between me and someone else who was into computers (apparently) as much as I am. So you would think we would have some common interests and could communicate (computer stuff)--- yet we could not. I was all into web design and the internet and personal computers, and he was all into systems analysis and programming. Still another computer person was into hardware, and I did not understand a thing he was talking about. So when I say "physical universe" I am implying that it is the universe we live in, and I am acknowledging the existence of other universes that are not 'physical' in their vibration. Frequency is a measurement of vibration, I agree. Light has a frequency and so does sound. So does every human being, and every object in this universe. They all vibrate within certain frequency ranges. All things within the physical universe vibrate within a certain frequency range. Vibration is movement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry if I misquoted you exactly. But I asked you to define "universe" not "physical universe." well as you brought up the term physical universe in that very post, i did my best to define it. i doubt the term is connected in the dictionary. "universe" is so it's not for me to define. whatever bean. You did say: "..... let's talk possibilities with science upermost in mind. scientific methodology. evidence that can be tested using scientific methodology." That translates as "known or popular science" for me. BUT if you are willing to explore some subjective science I'm all for it. how you translate and how i translate rarely agrees. i have no clue about any "subjective science" so i'd never enter into a discussion about it. You also said: firstly, imagination is imagination. reality is reality. That implies that reality has been defined and agreed upon in all aspects, but we have had many conversations on this club about what is reality and what is real vs subjective or illusion and personal realities etc. I just did not want to go there again in this thread. well and good. you said that in the last post too. and here we go there again anyway. but your argument is strawman yet again. i made no such implication as you suggest. you're simply transating my statement into your implication. we deal with such often, you and me. You said: well you bring up "reality" and then decide you'll "not get into that discussion". fine. Truth is, I love discussing reality, but to do so would have been getting way off the track from the conversation of this thread. agreed. so why did you bring it up? as we discussed in another thread, reality does not exist in my view. i simply commented that reality is not imagination. you raised both terms in this thread that you say is off the track of this thread. I notice that where we have a problem is in our word usage and understanding and the experience we are coming from. I have noticed this kind of language barrier between me and someone else who was into computers (apparently) as much as I am. So you would think we would have some common interests and could communicate (computer stuff)--- yet we could not. I was all into web design and the internet and personal computers, and he was all into systems analysis and programming. Still another computer person was into hardware, and I did not understand a thing he was talking about. more problems come from miscommunication than anything else imo. So when I say "physical universe" I am implying that it is the universe we live in, and I am acknowledging the existence of other universes that are not 'physical' in their vibration. i realized when you first brought up the term "physical universe" that that is what you were talking about. the universe we live in that is. but my questions was not how do you define it. my question was is their any other universe to which you replied that it depends how i define "physical universe". not how you define it. this is the crux of our communication problems as i see it bean. you continue to bring into the conversation concepts that you attribute to me when in actuality you began engaging the concept in the first place. i simply expressed my view on the concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoku wrote: I'm thinking I'm finding another similarity between you three- but before I go blabbing what I think it is, do you believe in demons of the hell variety? We have no choice but to believe in demons of the hell variety. It says right in the Bible that Jesus cast evil demons out of people who had been possessed by them. So there can be no question that they exist. Jesus never lies. He is perfect and without sin. No other human is without sin except for his virgin Mother Mary. She was the only mortal to ever achieve a perfectly sinless life. All the rest of us deserve to be cast into the eternal hell-fire for our evil sinful ways. However, know this! God loved us so much that he sent His Only Begotten Son to be nailed to a pole to wash away our sins with his holy sacrificial blood. Those who accept this blood-bath of pure heavenly mercy, and confess that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, will be saved from the horrible fate they so rightfully deserve. Instead of being cast into the eternal fire of damnation they will be permitted to enter into the Kingdom of God and forever wallow at the feet of Jesus in perfect servitude as eternal repentance for their shame. Pray with me brother: Dear Heavenly Father, Please forgive these atheistic scientists who believe they are the cousins of monkeys, for they know not what they think. They have been corrupted and blinded by the evil demon of Satan's science. We are working hard to bring these lost sheep into the light of your everlasting love of pure righteous and mercy. Please give us a bit more time as some of them seem to be coming around. They are asking questions about demons of the hell variety. This shows that they are at least curious to learn of how they too can be saved from eternal damnation and find their way into the eternal servitude of your Heavenly Kingdom. So please Lord, work with us on this one, we're trying hard to help you save these blind misguided souls. Amen  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i realized when you first brought up the term "physical universe" that that is what you were talking about. the universe we live in that is. but my questions was not how do you define it. my question was is their any other universe to which you replied that it depends how i define "physical universe". not how you define it. this is the crux of our communication problems as i see it bean. you continue to bring into the conversation concepts that you attribute to me when in actuality you began engaging the concept in the first place. i simply expressed my view on the concept. NO I DID NOT SAY: "That depends on how you define physical universe." I said.... "That depends on how you define UNIVERSE." If you are going to mis-understand what I say at least quote me correctly and try to see the difference between defining "Universe" and "Physical Universe." If we could first agree on the definition of "UNIVERSE" Then we could go from there. Because a "Universe" in my view does not necessarily have to be a "physical universe." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/18/09 10:50 AM
|
|
Shoku wrote: I'm thinking I'm finding another similarity between you three- but before I go blabbing what I think it is, do you believe in demons of the hell variety? We have no choice but to believe in demons of the hell variety. It says right in the Bible that Jesus cast evil demons out of people who had been possessed by them. So there can be no question that they exist. Jesus never lies. He is perfect and without sin. No other human is without sin except for his virgin Mother Mary. She was the only mortal to ever achieve a perfectly sinless life. All the rest of us deserve to be cast into the eternal hell-fire for our evil sinful ways. However, know this! God loved us so much that he sent His Only Begotten Son to be nailed to a pole to wash away our sins with his holy sacrificial blood. Those who accept this blood-bath of pure heavenly mercy, and confess that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, will be saved from the horrible fate they so rightfully deserve. Instead of being cast into the eternal fire of damnation they will be permitted to enter into the Kingdom of God and forever wallow at the feet of Jesus in perfect servitude as eternal repentance for their shame. Pray with me brother: Dear Heavenly Father, Please forgive these atheistic scientists who believe they are the cousins of monkeys, for they know not what they think. They have been corrupted and blinded by the evil demon of Satan's science. We are working hard to bring these lost sheep into the light of your everlasting love of pure righteous and mercy. Please give us a bit more time as some of them seem to be coming around. They are asking questions about demons of the hell variety. This shows that they are at least curious to learn of how they too can be saved from eternal damnation and find their way into the eternal servitude of your Heavenly Kingdom. So please Lord, work with us on this one, we're trying hard to help you save these blind misguided souls. Amen Nice picture James. You really should have been a preacher. You could have made a fortune. Its a great racket. You would be good at it if you didn't mind being a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote: Nice picture James. You really should have been a preacher. You could have made a fortune. Its a great racket. You would be good at it if you didn't mind being a hypocrite. Everyone always tells me that if were arguing for the Bible instead of against it I'd be converting large masses of people every day. But like you say, it truly is a racket, and one that I could never be morally comfortable with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think James should create his own spiritual foundation. He would have a huge amount of people to follow him.
 Jeannie also! I think you are pretty good at it also! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/18/09 12:22 PM
|
|
I think James should create his own spiritual foundation. He would have a huge amount of people to follow him. Jeannie also! I think you are pretty good at it also! I don't want followers. I don't have a clue where I am going. One of the reasons I did not have any children is because I just did not feel qualified for the job of raising them. Then by the time I felt qualified, I was too old. Another reason is that I interviewed women with children and 8 out of 10 of them said they loved their children but if they had it to do over again they would not have had children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think James should create his own spiritual foundation. He would have a huge amount of people to follow him. Jeannie also! I think you are pretty good at it also! I don't want followers. I don't have a clue where I am going. One of the reasons I did not have any children is because I just did not feel qualified for the job of raising them. Then by the time I felt qualified, I was too old. Another reason is that I interviewed women with children and 8 out of 10 of them said they loved their children but if they had it to do over again they would not have had children. Perhaps you did the right thing at the time. Perhaps you regret your decisions today. In the end they have been made. You can still have a child if you want. Adoption is an alternative, yet many don't feel comfortable with it. I have 23 of them that I visit every Friday at a foster home. but I am a child myself most of the time so it doesn't bother me at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/18/09 12:29 PM
|
|
I think James should create his own spiritual foundation. He would have a huge amount of people to follow him. Jeannie also! I think you are pretty good at it also! I don't want followers. I don't have a clue where I am going. One of the reasons I did not have any children is because I just did not feel qualified for the job of raising them. Then by the time I felt qualified, I was too old. Another reason is that I interviewed women with children and 8 out of 10 of them said they loved their children but if they had it to do over again they would not have had children. Perhaps you did the right thing at the time. Perhaps you regret your decisions today. In the end they have been made. You can still have a child if you want. Adoption is an alternative, yet many don't feel comfortable with it. I have 23 of them that I visit every Friday at a foster home. but I am a child myself most of the time so it doesn't bother me at all. My life would have been very different if I had children, but I don't regret having none. (I think I had a lot in my past lives.) LOL I'm too old and too poor to adopt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So let me put it this way. Where does the “character” go when it dies? Well, since it’s an integral part of the game (i.e. the game is really just bits in the computer and the character is a subset of that) the character doesn’t really “go” anywhere. Those memory locations just get reused. Just like the components of our bodies are a subset of the components of the universe and get reused. I'm an organ donor so I don't think the pieces that make me or memory positions that store me are me. I'm a combination or a pattern- wipe that away and I'm gone; take the pieces apart and they're just generic pieces. Now unless you are able to comprehend that single, most fundamental concept of the whole philosophy, then all the extrapolations and corollaries and conclusions based on that concept will be equally incomprehensible. I'm obviously made of pieces because if you take just a few of them away you can change who I am but as that's the change I'd not longer be me but rather someone else. There's a fuzzy line between how I grow into being someone else all the time and how just switching who I am would be something drastically different but I don't think that's a line anyone doesn't intuitively understand well enough. That’s fine. I understand that opinion and recognize that it is shared by many. I just have a different opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think James should create his own spiritual foundation. He would have a huge amount of people to follow him. Jeannie also! I think you are pretty good at it also! I don't want followers. I don't have a clue where I am going. One of the reasons I did not have any children is because I just did not feel qualified for the job of raising them. Then by the time I felt qualified, I was too old. Another reason is that I interviewed women with children and 8 out of 10 of them said they loved their children but if they had it to do over again they would not have had children. Perhaps you did the right thing at the time. Perhaps you regret your decisions today. In the end they have been made. You can still have a child if you want. Adoption is an alternative, yet many don't feel comfortable with it. I have 23 of them that I visit every Friday at a foster home. but I am a child myself most of the time so it doesn't bother me at all. My life would have been very different if I had children, but I don't regret having none. (I think I had a lot in my past lives.) LOL I'm too old and too poor to adopt. No problem at all. I will find homes for my children one day The main thing is you are happy. That is most important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other realities: To give an example, an astral body is not considered to be "physical." There is also an "astral" reality. But this is not necessarily to be considered a separate "universe" as it is actually part of and very connected to this physical universe. As far as I know, our physical (popular and public) science has not recognized the astral world and astral "material" as even being "real." Therefor, a discussion about them with someone who insists on remaining within the boundary of physical science would be quite pointless. fine. then i'll consider that you are bowing out of our exchange of views. No, you did when you made the rules that our exchange of views should stay inside the boundaries you defined as "known science" and the physical world, and then you asked if there was a non-physical universe. How, after that, could I possibly proceed? [/quote If the Astra plane is part of our universe why can't anyone show that? Even if humans were the only vessel capable of connecting with it we should still be able to do tests and things to show they were having some kind of impact. I have asserted that we cannot rule out intelligent design in this universe and I have asserted that there are many designers and I have asserted that even we are designers. Trying to make it refer to designs we make is like trying to make celebrity refer to the stars in the sky. I see how governments are run, I see how corporations are run, I see how the world is run and if that is the way it is in this reality, then I can only assume that is the way it is everywhere else, and even in the place people might call "heaven." People usually designate the bureaucracy to hell or at least the lowewr tiers of their afterlife model. It is also known that I have not ruled out that non-human intelligent life probably exists in this galaxy and probably on this earth. Some of these creatures may well look and act like 'demons.' I'm specifically talking about where they come from. If it's just a planet going around some other star I'd call that alien but if they have crawled out from something like the astral shadow of this particular planet they would be demons. If they're just what people in the past called demons but they classify as aliens as per the above I would say that demons were made up in some ways and misinterpreted in others. So basically not real but with some basis in reality. Is this well enough agreeing with your thoughts on the matter? |
|
|
|
|
