  |
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Lissa, as I said before, the bush could not have communicated to you. I know that is what you want to believe, and what you are believing right now, but it simply could not have happened. If you actually heard something that day near the bush, there was some other natural phenomena that could account for it, but to simply argue that it was the bush is to take the easy and lazy way out. Simply because you yourself do not want to or refuse to look for the actual solution to this little dilemma does not mean that the bush did it. At the very least, I would request that you exercise an appropriate level of intellectual honesty, or else this debate will never go anywhere. You speak about there not being any scientific proof, but I'm sure that if scientists, or just plain curious people, who wanted to find out what was really going on, set up some sort of controlled environment near the bush, they could figure out what was causing the noise and you would not be the only one hearing that stuff.
Have you heard of the Lorelei legend? In the river Rhine in Germany, there is a sharp bend at one point along the path that has witnessed the doom of many sailors. Near that path, people often say there is a woman singing; that is, this woman is singing with actual human words, much like the Sirens in Greek mythology. After much fuss over essentially nothing, scientists discovered that the weird sounds, which did actually exist, were caused by wind blowing across some nearby rocks. Not knowing this, of course, the people that had heard the sounds merely allowed themselves to be sucked into the belief that they were hearing genuine voices, not unlike you. As a hypnotherapist, you probably know that the human mind has a tendency to look for shapes and patterns in just about the strangest places. One of the most well-known manifestations of that principle is with sounds, and it has happened to many people who are unwilling to think a little more about the problem and to realize that there are factors that they are not analyzing.
On this "absolutes" thing: I have no problem if you disagree with me by providing notable and compelling evidence. What you have given me thus far, however, is completely atrocious from an intellectual perspective. I do not want to demean your personal experiences in any way. Just to reiterate: I believe that to you they were very real (as some have been to me), but I must confess strong disappointment that you are reaching putatively fait accompli conclusions without necessary justification. There is a reason why science has left people with similar methodologies in the dustbin of history. Frankly, your "spiritual development" sounds like little more than pseudoscience, comparable to astrology or alchemy.
The "absolutist" statements of the kind you are making, like "all life is energy," are confusing to say the least, and wholly unhelpful. We do not actually know what the fundamental constituents of existence are yet. The most advanced scientific theories currently postulate one-dimensional, vibrating strings, which in turn create the fermions, particles that consitute matter (like protons and neutrons), and bosons, particles that transmit forces (like photons and gluons), that are responsible for pretty much everything you know and encounter in the Universe. We are not sure about the strings part (still way too early to tell), but we're pretty damn sure we've gotten the fermion-boson distinction down. If you hope to impress with your conjenctures, you must provide explanations that involve these types of particles. Otherwise, per my earlier position, most of what you said will be warmly and safely ignored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Evilution |
|
|
|
| MissLisa wrote: |
I would be curious to learn how you see life and its purpose if you do not believe in an eternal soul.
I am not looking to argue with you about it, or even devalue how you see life... but am very curious how you see life and its purpose if there is no higher reason or any reason to be here.
Just curious,
Lisa |
This is a loaded question and one could write books on it, but I'll try to be brief. Mostly, I agree with exton. I do not believe that life has an intrinsic purpose; we lead the lives that we want whenever we can. How life is envisaged varies from person to person, although I would note common threads between every human. I have to note those threads, after all, because I am a liberal, and liberalism provides the background for my ethics. But this is not to say that I believe liberalism is the purpose of all life, because it isn't, even though several liberal principles are held to be basic to all humans (hence the common threads theme). Among these are the suppositions that humans are fundamentally rational and good.
That aside, simply because I think there is no connate purpose to life does not mean that I think it is necessarily wrong to create one. What's so wrong with having a sense of direction, right? We all do it; starting from childhood we imagine all kinds of possibilities - that we'll be astronauts or football players. We grow up, still with purpose on our minds - going to college, getting a good job, marrying, having a family, leading a good life. Those are all symptoms of humans planning towards some end. That was for individual humans. For humanity as a whole: I believe our purpose should be nothing less than total and complete domination of the Universe, ideologically and in every other way. The leading banner in the fight would be Liberalism, of course, an ideology of liberty, equality, and tolerance, among other cherished principles. Humans would conquer the Universe while bringing liberty to all intelligent species and declaring equality and harmony among all. Basically, we should do what the French sort of did during their Revolutionary period, though hopefully we don't screw it up like they did. I believe that Liberalism necessitates imperialism, which in this context I define as the spread of liberal principles to all peoples. There is no way that a crackpot faith like Christianity could be more ecumenical than a gem like Liberalism, so if Christianity is meant for everyone, then Liberalism is meant doubly so! That would be one of my driving principles for humanity as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The purpose of life is to defeat death.
As to Lisa, I think where you are losing the majority of us is that you don't have documented proof, and you cannot blame someone for wanting such a thing, especially since you have told us yourself that this flowing energy is easily malleable and communicative.
If you would perhaps make a video of yourself turning an apple into an orange?? Or of having a battery in a toothbrush and the toothbrush not working, and then charging the battery and putting it back in the toothbrush and making the toothbrush work?
While I am certainly not saying it is impossible, I think we would all agree, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and evidence cannot consist of personal experiences, you have to admit, you could just be making this up, and we would have no idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | Lissa, as I said before, the bush could not have communicated to you. I know that is what you want to believe, and what you are believing right now, but it simply could not have happened. If you actually heard something that day near the bush, there was some other natural phenomena that could account for it, but to simply argue that it was the bush is to take the easy and lazy way out. Simply because you yourself do not want to or refuse to look for the actual solution to this little dilemma does not mean that the bush did it. At the very least, I would request that you exercise an appropriate level of intellectual honesty, or else this debate will never go anywhere. You speak about there not being any scientific proof, but I'm sure that if scientists, or just plain curious people, who wanted to find out what was really going on, set up some sort of controlled environment near the bush, they could figure out what was causing the noise and you would not be the only one hearing that stuff.
Have you heard of the Lorelei legend? In the river Rhine in Germany, there is a sharp bend at one point along the path that has witnessed the doom of many sailors. Near that path, people often say there is a woman singing; that is, this woman is singing with actual human words, much like the Sirens in Greek mythology. After much fuss over essentially nothing, scientists discovered that the weird sounds, which did actually exist, were caused by wind blowing across some nearby rocks. Not knowing this, of course, the people that had heard the sounds merely allowed themselves to be sucked into the belief that they were hearing genuine voices, not unlike you. As a hypnotherapist, you probably know that the human mind has a tendency to look for shapes and patterns in just about the strangest places. One of the most well-known manifestations of that principle is with sounds, and it has happened to many people who are unwilling to think a little more about the problem and to realize that there are factors that they are not analyzing.
On this "absolutes" thing: I have no problem if you disagree with me by providing notable and compelling evidence. What you have given me thus far, however, is completely atrocious from an intellectual perspective. I do not want to demean your personal experiences in any way. Just to reiterate: I believe that to you they were very real (as some have been to me), but I must confess strong disappointment that you are reaching putatively fait accompli conclusions without necessary justification. There is a reason why science has left people with similar methodologies in the dustbin of history. Frankly, your "spiritual development" sounds like little more than pseudoscience, comparable to astrology or alchemy.
The "absolutist" statements of the kind you are making, like "all life is energy," are confusing to say the least, and wholly unhelpful. We do not actually know what the fundamental constituents of existence are yet. The most advanced scientific theories currently postulate one-dimensional, vibrating strings, which in turn create the fermions, particles that consitute matter (like protons and neutrons), and bosons, particles that transmit forces (like photons and gluons), that are responsible for pretty much everything you know and encounter in the Universe. We are not sure about the strings part (still way too early to tell), but we're pretty damn sure we've gotten the fermion-boson distinction down. If you hope to impress with your conjenctures, you must provide explanations that involve these types of particles. Otherwise, per my earlier position, most of what you said will be warmly and safely ignored. |
Give me time  and I will find a way to prove to you what I say is true. I have just entered college this year taking pre-nursing (pre-medicine just requires so much math... and my brain is not mathematical). My desire is to become involved with medical research... and share the things I have come to know and understand with illness. I know that medicine is big business and that those who profit from illness would like no cures... there is no real reason to be ill.. if you understand why the illness is there in the first place.
Do I have a way to prove this right now... hell no. I am just a girl doing what I do. But my hope is to be able to find the place where someone will say... hey there is something consistent and verifiable in what she does... and take a closer look. Especially since what I do... everyone can do, if they learned how... and get out of their own heads with reason... and open their hearts to the possibilities that exist.
Even science had to redefine what it believes as technology moves forward and new ways of discovery come about... what they were certain of a few decades ago... has changed.
| Quote: | | We do not actually know what the fundamental constituents of existence are yet. |
That statement alone says... there are things science does not know... that to science, life is still a mystery... and science is still evolving to find out more.
Actually I googled the
| Quote: | | fermion-boson distinction |
Very interesting stuff there!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A666173
I would bet, if you and I actually sat down and just discussed what we understand.. you being the scientist, me being the non-scientist  but more esoteric in my own understandings.. we are not really far away from each other... we just use different terminology and descriptions.... and have come to understand it all using a different text (or language).
I am very intrigued and interested in the Fermions and Bosons and the spin (which I teach... everything is in motion, spinning and you can effect the spin!).. even a rock when viewed under a high powered microscope is in motion.
I would bet, it is at this level of understanding (the minutest part that is currently available... science leaving the fact stated they still don't understand it all yet) that you can change the make up of a tangible object into another object (again this is where science and spirit would converse and work together within the possibilities instead of insisting one is not possible). Just a thought there tho...
Perhaps it is time for science and spirit to merge...
If I ever decide to be brave enough to go into pre-med instead of pre-nursing... would you tutor me in math.. I have a feeling, you excel in that area. You are very left brained where I am very right brained.
I know you will probably laugh at this statement (but thats ok with me)... my mission or goal this year is to learn how to change matter from one form to another... I wasn't quite sure where to start (scientifically speaking)... and you have given me a clarity today that was not there a moment ago.
When I connect with something, anything... I see it as a mass of energy... I do not seperate the particles in my viewing... and perhaps that is exactly what I need to do. For example when communicating with an illness... I see it as a mass of energy... instead of individual particles of energy... for healing, the mass is ok... but to create the physical change of matter... I really feel that was my missing key.... addressing the individual particles.
I know you are probably thinking this girl does not play with all her marbles.... tis ok... a lot of wonderful people were viewed as crazy or quacks.. until they were viewed otherwise.
Have a wonder-filled day!!
Lisa
[/code] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester wrote: | The purpose of life is to defeat death.
As to Lisa, I think where you are losing the majority of us is that you don't have documented proof, and you cannot blame someone for wanting such a thing, especially since you have told us yourself that this flowing energy is easily malleable and communicative.
If you would perhaps make a video of yourself turning an apple into an orange?? Or of having a battery in a toothbrush and the toothbrush not working, and then charging the battery and putting it back in the toothbrush and making the toothbrush work?
While I am certainly not saying it is impossible, I think we would all agree, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and evidence cannot consist of personal experiences, you have to admit, you could just be making this up, and we would have no idea. |
Hi Lester,
Good news... there is no death, so there is nothing to defeat. Now if you mean to stay in a physical body... that too is possible, if it truly was your desire. Our physical bodies were designed to sustain life forever...
I do not think making a video tape would cease the questioning mind.. it would have to happen in a laboratory setting, closely monitored and evaluated... otherwise the video tape would be viewed as smoke and mirrors and discounted as plausible. I am more than willing to be that test dummy and am doing what I can to break into a very scary field (it is mathematics that scares me, nothing else  ) of science.
I also believe personal experience is a wonderful validation for things science has yet to come to terms with.
I agree with you.. people want concrete proof. Not only with science... but just look at the world we are living in... most people do not want to believe what is happening because no one can verify beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is happening!
I will come back to my opening statement in my previous post... Give me time.. I will give you proof!
Namaste,
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: Evilution |
|
|
|
| Quote: | CryxicKiller
This is a loaded question and one could write books on it, but I'll try to be brief. Mostly, I agree with exton. I do not believe that life has an intrinsic purpose; we lead the lives that we want whenever we can. How life is envisaged varies from person to person, although I would note common threads between every human. I have to note those threads, after all, because I am a liberal, and liberalism provides the background for my ethics. But this is not to say that I believe liberalism is the purpose of all life, because it isn't, even though several liberal principles are held to be basic to all humans (hence the common threads theme). Among these are the suppositions that humans are fundamentally rational and good.
That aside, simply because I think there is no connate purpose to life does not mean that I think it is necessarily wrong to create one. What's so wrong with having a sense of direction, right? We all do it; starting from childhood we imagine all kinds of possibilities - that we'll be astronauts or football players. We grow up, still with purpose on our minds - going to college, getting a good job, marrying, having a family, leading a good life. Those are all symptoms of humans planning towards some end. That was for individual humans. For humanity as a whole: I believe our purpose should be nothing less than total and complete domination of the Universe, ideologically and in every other way. The leading banner in the fight would be Liberalism, of course, an ideology of liberty, equality, and tolerance, among other cherished principles. Humans would conquer the Universe while bringing liberty to all intelligent species and declaring equality and harmony among all. Basically, we should do what the French sort of did during their Revolutionary period, though hopefully we don't screw it up like they did. I believe that Liberalism necessitates imperialism, which in this context I define as the spread of liberal principles to all peoples. There is no way that a crackpot faith like Christianity could be more ecumenical than a gem like Liberalism, so if Christianity is meant for everyone, then Liberalism is meant doubly so! That would be one of my driving principles for humanity as a whole. |
Thank you for that explanation, and the effort and thought behind it. It really seems you and I are more inline with each other than we are separate... from our beliefs and desires... We are simply seeing each other from that crazy dividing fence of science and spirit... gotta find a way to take down the fence... find a happy medium with our verbiage between each other... we may actually be useful to each other within our own desires for humanity... and science!!
Just a thought tho.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Our bodies stop multiplying cells as time goes by, thats why our skin gets wrinkled and our organs give out. If you can stop me dying, well then hey, I'd send you all of the money I have, plus a million ontop of that, and yes I mean stay in my physical body.
As much as I wish it to be true however, my mind is quite fixated on the scary nothingness that is the end of life, so somehow I doubt you'll be getting that cheque.
I hold somewhat the same position as Houdini, I would LOVE for there to be a real life paranormal phenomena, but it would certainly take convincing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester wrote: | Our bodies stop multiplying cells as time goes by, thats why our skin gets wrinkled and our organs give out. If you can stop me dying, well then hey, I'd send you all of the money I have, plus a million ontop of that, and yes I mean stay in my physical body.
As much as I wish it to be true however, my mind is quite fixated on the scary nothingness that is the end of life, so somehow I doubt you'll be getting that cheque.
I hold somewhat the same position as Houdini, I would LOVE for there to be a real life paranormal phenomena, but it would certainly take convincing. |
I don't have the time this morning to get to your opening paragraph... but will when I return later in the day...
In regards to your 2nd statement... What if I can show you, thru your own experiences... that there is so much more to life after physical life and there is no such thing as nothingness.. do you think your questioning mind could move out of its own way to accept your own experiences as real even tho modern science couldn't back up how you have had your experiences?
Have a great day!!
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would prefer physical life, for as long as possible.
Call me old fashioned, but this life of flesh and blood? It's heaven on Earth. I don't want anymore or less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just to eliminate the confusion that I notice still reigns: the only way in which you could prove any of this is to do so within the context of physics already highlighted, meaning naturalistic explanations only. The Universe does not operate in supernatural ways. But if you were to do that, then you would not really be surprising me or anyone else (and I can already hypothesize several nomologically plausible arguments for your personal experiences; none of this shocks me at all...I've heard it all before, and seen it all explained before, or much of it anyway).
You keep emphasizing the heart. Once again, beyond what I already stated, the heart is irrelevant in the context that you speak of. It is not and cannot be cognizant. It cannot "know," it cannot "feel," and so on. Only the brain does that.
I addressed a similar argument about the progress of science before to Johnyguitar, a few posts above. Refer to that for more clarification. Briefly, however, science is getting more confident that it is approaching the "truth." As I said in that post, this is probably a view most associated with a scientific realist, but it is both a popular and a plausible one, perhaps nowhere more so than in physics.
Care to explain the purpose behind the link you gave me? It's a basic description of the Standard Model. And? Is it supposed to reveal something about fermions and bosons that I mischaracterized? The following was basically the most relevant statement:
Both matter and forces are explained using particles. All these particles fit into two categories: fermions and bosons.
Ooptie do....moving on. Your next paragraph once again highlights the dangers I believe inherent in your views. The best form of knowledge is scientific knowledge. It cannot be any other "esoteric" type of knowledge or other such rubbish. Those kinds of arguments and thought processes are dangerous, intellectually dishonest, and, ultimately, lack empirical evidence. There is a reason why science severely distrusts them.
Everything is in motion; you're right about that. But quantum mechanics really has specific value in that statement; it does not throw it around with abandon, hoping that someone will be sucked in by its vicissitudes. There is no such thing as absolute rest because, in at least one interpretation of quantum mechanics, matter is merely a probability distribution. That is, there's not just something "there," but the probability of that something being "there" is higher than the probability of it being somewhere else, hence we say the thing or object is "there." That's why there's no absolute rest.
It depends on what you mean when you talk about changing something to something else. Again, the absence of a mechanism and your abstruse statements preclude rigid analysis. I'll tell you this though: you can't change an orange into an apple the way you supposedly did (or whatever it was that you did). If it doesn't violate the conservation laws of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum, among other principles, then it is nomologically possible, though that's not to say in happens (there's weird stuff like that in quantum mechanics).
Science and spirit need to stay apart as much as they can. I am fine if a scientist got spiritual, but he or she should leave that at home, not bring it into the workplace. I'd love to take you up on the math offer, but I don't see how it's probable, given that you're probably more busy than I am and that we live who knows where. There are plenty of great resources, online and in print, if you really are interested in learning mathematics. I'd be happy to recommend something.
I will ignore the matter statements completely. To me they are futile. But I do want you to answer something, if you can: in what sense are you speaking about this "energy" of yours? You keep mentioning it, but it has not been defined as of yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oolon Colluphid
Not a Newbie
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 133
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Lisa,
Where do thoughts come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | CryxicKiller"]Care to explain the purpose behind the link you gave me? It's a basic description of the Standard Model. And? Is it supposed to reveal something about fermions and bosons that I mischaracterized? The following was basically the most relevant statement:
Both matter and forces are explained using particles. All these particles fit into two categories: fermions and bosons. |
I don't have time this morning to address your whole post.. school starts for me today and my morning postings have been cut back time wise.
I never said you mischaracterized anything... but actually brought information to me by mentioning this model. I was thanking you for the information.
I will be back to post when I have more time...
Have a great day!!
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | Just to eliminate the confusion that I notice still reigns: the only way in which you could prove any of this is to do so within the context of physics already highlighted, meaning naturalistic explanations only. The Universe does not operate in supernatural ways. But if you were to do that, then you would not really be surprising me or anyone else (and I can already hypothesize several nomologically plausible arguments for your personal experiences; none of this shocks me at all...I've heard it all before, and seen it all explained before, or much of it anyway).
You keep emphasizing the heart. Once again, beyond what I already stated, the heart is irrelevant in the context that you speak of. It is not and cannot be cognizant. It cannot "know," it cannot "feel," and so on. Only the brain does that.
I addressed a similar argument about the progress of science before to Johnyguitar, a few posts above. Refer to that for more clarification. Briefly, however, science is getting more confident that it is approaching the "truth." As I said in that post, this is probably a view most associated with a scientific realist, but it is both a popular and a plausible one, perhaps nowhere more so than in physics.
Care to explain the purpose behind the link you gave me? It's a basic description of the Standard Model. And? Is it supposed to reveal something about fermions and bosons that I mischaracterized? The following was basically the most relevant statement:
Both matter and forces are explained using particles. All these particles fit into two categories: fermions and bosons.
Ooptie do....moving on. Your next paragraph once again highlights the dangers I believe inherent in your views. The best form of knowledge is scientific knowledge. It cannot be any other "esoteric" type of knowledge or other such rubbish. Those kinds of arguments and thought processes are dangerous, intellectually dishonest, and, ultimately, lack empirical evidence. There is a reason why science severely distrusts them.
Everything is in motion; you're right about that. But quantum mechanics really has specific value in that statement; it does not throw it around with abandon, hoping that someone will be sucked in by its vicissitudes. There is no such thing as absolute rest because, in at least one interpretation of quantum mechanics, matter is merely a probability distribution. That is, there's not just something "there," but the probability of that something being "there" is higher than the probability of it being somewhere else, hence we say the thing or object is "there." That's why there's no absolute rest.
It depends on what you mean when you talk about changing something to something else. Again, the absence of a mechanism and your abstruse statements preclude rigid analysis. I'll tell you this though: you can't change an orange into an apple the way you supposedly did (or whatever it was that you did). If it doesn't violate the conservation laws of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum, among other principles, then it is nomologically possible, though that's not to say in happens (there's weird stuff like that in quantum mechanics).
Science and spirit need to stay apart as much as they can. I am fine if a scientist got spiritual, but he or she should leave that at home, not bring it into the workplace. I'd love to take you up on the math offer, but I don't see how it's probable, given that you're probably more busy than I am and that we live who knows where. There are plenty of great resources, online and in print, if you really are interested in learning mathematics. I'd be happy to recommend something.
I will ignore the matter statements completely. To me they are futile. But I do want you to answer something, if you can: in what sense are you speaking about this "energy" of yours? You keep mentioning it, but it has not been defined as of yet. |
The one thing you are showing me... if I actually peruse my desires... man oh man am I going to have a fight on my hands (said with love and a smile).
I am to mentally exhausted to do much with this post this evening... and have readings booked all day long tomorrow... but I did want to make clear, I never said I have turned an apple into an orange.. but that I know it is possible (according to what I have learned... not according to what you have learned). I know that your science shows it is impossible. And I am not looking to butt horns with you on the matter... until one day I can prove you wrong until then... I will let you be right (please see that as humor).
One day tho... we are both going to be standing on the other side of life (some things are true whether we believe them or not)... and we will have a good chuckle together over all of this. I am sure, we will both find... we were both right. Imagine that possibility 
Granted I am no scientist... I have no mathmatical brain to even consider it... but what I do not understand is why you could possible think the things I see (as real for me) are dangerous. I find the things I have learned beautiful and life fullfilling.. so dangerous just doesn't make sense to me. But of course I cannot fathom it from your mind.
You are a great person to converse with! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MissLisa wrote: | | what I do not understand is why you could possible think the things I see (as real for me) are dangerous. I find the things I have learned beautiful and life fullfilling.. so dangerous just doesn't make sense to me. But of course I cannot fathom it from your mind. |
Oh it's not that hard to understand.
Your thoughts are dangerous because you can vote.
It's not a problem when one person believes absurdities. But it definitely is a problem when that person brings her absurdities to the table when deciding public policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Exton touched on an important part of the issue, however humorously. Your thoughts are dangerous because people can and have died over believing them. That is, they've died not over believing what you are saying specifically, but believing similar things: statements asserted without proof and without burden of proof. Essentially, you are touting these propositions as a priori, but doing so without appropriate justification. For an example, I'll again refer you to the priest in Nigeria who believed he could walk on water like Jesus. He tried it and drowned. This isn't purely an intellectual matter; there are real, veritable consequences with ideas, and I would urge us all to think carefully before spitting them out like you are. I apologize if it seems that I am being harsh in some way, but I have to stomp my foot on this.
It is not possible to turn an apple into an orange in the sense that you are speaking. It's not "my" science: what I am telling you are authentic laws that describe the materialistic behavior of our Universe. They cannot be violated; the laws of physics are not like human laws. Furthermore, it does not take a "mathematical" or "scientific" brain to understand some of this stuff. All you need is curiosity, which is an integral component of doing science in its own right.
Thanks for the compliment at the end. I return the sentiment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
