Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You are part of the living universe

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space,and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 3:08:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

You are using a definition of "life" that is not in my dictionary. When people do this, it pretty much makes both understanding and conversation impossible.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space, and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

Ah! I think I'm getting the picture.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 3:33:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

So you're no longer an open-minded enquirer Jane, but a frothing proselyte?

Gee, that was quick. Wasn't it only two weeks ago that the Preponderance of Evidence had Swayed you? [http://www.debate.org...]

But now you're not just swayed... you're charging, eh?

Are you the person the universe wants to communicate with me through? I can't help but wish it had chosen someone more measured, better educated and more honest.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 3:41:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:33:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

So you're no longer an open-minded enquirer Jane, but a frothing proselyte?

Gee, that was quick. Wasn't it only two weeks ago that the Preponderance of Evidence had Swayed you? [http://www.debate.org...]

But now you're not just swayed... you're charging, eh?

Are you the person the universe wants to communicate with me through? I can't help but wish it had chosen someone more measured, better educated and more honest.

No, the universe communicates directly to you. Not through me.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 3:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:08:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

You are using a definition of "life" that is not in my dictionary. When people do this, it pretty much makes both understanding and conversation impossible.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space, and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

Ah! I think I'm getting the picture.

There is no scientific definition of life,and it won't be in your dictionary.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 4:40:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is no scientific definition of life,and it won't be in your dictionary.

True.

However, no scientist would agree that " Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness." You can ascribe life to particles if you want to, but any reference to science is unwarranted.
Think
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 4:58:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

What is Bell's Theorem?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 5:06:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 4:58:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

What is Bell's Theorem?

Highly respected Quantum woo respected by many physicists as being the most important scientific discovery of the last century.

It also makes the idea of completely isolating all variables in an experiment rather absurd.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 5:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ok, I might be inflating it a bit, but I personally find it to be very profound.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 5:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:33:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

So you're no longer an open-minded enquirer Jane, but a frothing proselyte?

Not much different from every post you make having the same theme.


Gee, that was quick. Wasn't it only two weeks ago that the Preponderance of Evidence had Swayed you? [http://www.debate.org...]

But now you're not just swayed... you're charging, eh?

Are you the person the universe wants to communicate with me through? I can't help but wish it had chosen someone more measured, better educated and more honest.

genetic fallacy
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 7:48:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:33:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

So you're no longer an open-minded enquirer Jane, but a frothing proselyte?

Yes, no longer a materialist minded bigot, correct. "Open-mindedness" is nowhere near your camp Draba, funny how you associate that with yourself with that and now are prepared to stereotype and label.

Gee, that was quick. Wasn't it only two weeks ago that the Preponderance of Evidence had Swayed you? [http://www.debate.org...]

Yeah, once you head in the direction of truth things move quick, that old atheist mindset is a real restriction of free thought, once it is removed it is like a river dam busting loose all the stagnant crap.

But now you're not just swayed... you're charging, eh?

And why not?? does that make you squeal like a rabid demon lol?

Are you the person the universe wants to communicate with me through? I can't help but wish it had chosen someone more measured, better educated and more honest.

In other words if it's not a materialist-minded atheist you want no part, yeah we all knew that already. My first impression of you was in a decent light, the more I read the more I realize what sarcastic prick you are, only pretend to be nice about it :)
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 8:13:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The universe is illusion. It exists in time and space as the box of materials we will eventually be able to manipulate like we do everything else in order to evolve ourselves OUT of the Universe. Yes, Out of it, as it is not the be all and end all of existence. Our souls are outside the material universe. God told me this.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 10:45:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 7:48:53 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
In other words if it's not a materialist-minded atheist you want no part, yeah we all knew that already.

Of course not, EV. I would never ask Jane to be an atheist. I think it'd make her miserable. She wants desperately to be part of an integrated, benign and purposeful moral order, and if she believes that, then the worst I can imagine happening is that she'll live her life happily and peacefully, feeling cherished.

I couldn't possibly oppose that in itself, however if Jane wants to submit those ideas to scrutiny and critique, that's up to her.

What I oppose are her claims to authority regarding science and, metaphysics -- I oppose them intellectually since Jane is very uninformed about science, and something of a blog-site woo-addict. And I oppose morally her increasingly disingenuous approach to debate that pretends to have given full consideration to the facts but is actually a set of predetermined conclusions seeking self-validation through claims of authority and selective accountability.

The former means that I seek to reply constructively and patiently about science -- not because I expect Jane to read and think about it (she seldom does), but because her questions are often reasonable, because others may be interested, and because it holds my own understanding to account. See for example -- this (hopefully) polite and careful response, posted in about the same hour as my response above: [http://www.debate.org...]

The latter means that I may indulge in satire -- not sarcasm, as you suggested, since my goal is not to hurt but to challenge Jane's blithe self-satisfaction. The difference between sarcasm and satire is pretty well-defined by HW Fowler in Modern English Usage, (1923) but a neat excerpt of his taxonomy of different kinds of humour can be found at [http://www.etymonline.com...]

And that's probably enough explanation for one post, but since you seemed offended by my response to Jane on this occasion, and since I view you as a member who (generally) posts in good will, I thought I'd offer a brief accounting. What you make of it is, of course, entirely up to you.

My first impression of you was in a decent light, the more I read the more I realize what sarcastic prick you are, only pretend to be nice about it :)

Well, gee, EV. In one post you managed to misrepresent my motives, attack my character, demonise atheism, and conflate it with materialism. Even if I were only pretending to be nice, I should be glad to offer you lessons in how to do so whenever you'd like. Our operators are waiting for your call. :)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 11:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:41:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:33:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

So you're no longer an open-minded enquirer Jane, but a frothing proselyte?

Gee, that was quick. Wasn't it only two weeks ago that the Preponderance of Evidence had Swayed you? [http://www.debate.org...]

But now you're not just swayed... you're charging, eh?

Are you the person the universe wants to communicate with me through? I can't help but wish it had chosen someone more measured, better educated and more honest.

No, the universe communicates directly to you. Not through me.

I'm sorry Jane, but it really doesn't. I can show people how to have great fun making up stories with tarot decks or I Ching, for example, but that's not the universe... it's just me. I can tell, because each story's themes bear the signature of my own interests, concerns and knowledge.

The problem with numerology, astrology and so on is that it's much the same. It's easy to show that it's great at producing confirmation bias, but terrible at producing specific, significant, time-bounded, independently-validated predictions.
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 12:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space,and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

Hmmm. This is starting to sound more and more like skyangel.
(That is not a compliment).
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 7:38:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The problem with numerology, astrology and so on is that it's much the same. It's easy to show that it's great at producing confirmation bias, but terrible at producing specific, significant, time-bounded, independently-validated predictions."

Yeah, tell that one to God who embedded the Celestial Torah astrological code in human history starting 35,000 years ago with one of the very first human made figurines--just happened to follow the Celestial Torah astrological code for the Messiah. That astrological code springs to life starting 4000 years ago with the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians, and becomes embedded in Judeo-Christian religious history in the Musa/Jesus Christ/Aquarius identification. And then there's me recovering the lost Celestial Torah astrological code that identifies God Most High, EL Elyon as the Canaanite name for the planet Saturn, as it identifies EL's relationship to the Messiah astrologically as Father to Son, that son being the "Man" Sign of the Chariot of God, the Sign of the Baptist, the Sign of Aquarius. And my Sign is, Ruv, in your mistaken attempt to belittle astrological inability to predict specific ways astrological information manifests in reality? Well?? If you're right, my Sign should be randomly determined as you say there's no astrological continuity. So, what Sign am I, Ruv? Take a guess..remember, there's no astrological continuity you say despite my posting of the 35,000 years of astrological continuity in the God Most High/Messiah astrological code found in the Celestial Torah and embedded within the earthly Torah/Tanakh/New Testament scriptures.

I'll help you out. I'm Aquarius Sun and Rising. And it is the Aquariana Key astrological material this Jewish Christian prophesy bearer adds to the Judeo-Christian manifestation of the Messiah that follows the Celestial Torah original astrological code.
number123
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 9:41:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space,and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention. : :

How do you know that each particle has free will?
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 9:41:29 AM, number123 wrote:
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space,and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention. : :

How do you know that each particle has free will?

I don't know for sure. I don't know all the details. The universe gives pieces of the puzzle for us to figure out.
Draconius
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.
I have no problem with the existence of a "god." It is the behavior of his fan clubs that frightens me to no end...
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.

I can't be scientific for you.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 9:27:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/25/2015 3:04:11 PM, janesix wrote:
Life is the basic constituent of the universe. It is the fabric of space. Every particle is made up of life, and has a certain level of sensation and consciousness. This includes free will. The more complex a structure, the more free will it has,and the more consciousness it has. You are a combination of all of your particles,and share in their life and consciousness.

Ideal forms exist in the fabric of space,and consist of morphogenic fields that are independent . There is a nested hierarchy of fields. You have your own field, which consists of subsets of fields of your particles and systems.

The universe has the ultimate morphogenic field, which consists of all of the subfields in the universe, including yours. The universe has it's own identity. Everything is connected and unified.

The universe told me this, and communicates mostly through mathematics and numbers, but can also use symbols and metaphors. Anyone can communicate with the universe, you only have to pay attention.

OK, I was with you all the way until you said that the Universe told you about the personal opinion you posted. It does not speak to us. God does. Maybe. If we know how to listen to Him. I also disagree that the Universe talks to us via Mathematics and numbers. (which BTW are the same thing.) Wrong. I think that instead Math s simply how Man attempt to put down into a language (Math IS a language) what he learns about the Universe. It is his "opinion" and "understanding" of its Laws and Mechanics. The Universe does not freely speak these things, as they must be de-ciphered by Man.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Draconius
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.
I have no problem with the existence of a "god." It is the behavior of his fan clubs that frightens me to no end...
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:46:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.

Prove your assertion that I can't be scientific for myself using the scientific method.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:54:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What garbage. Make all the imaginary connections you like, the definitions of inorganic stay the same.
Draconius
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:07:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:46:28 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.

Prove your assertion that I can't be scientific for myself using the scientific method.

Your posts are the proof. Not one of them that I have read contains even a shred of substantiation.
I have no problem with the existence of a "god." It is the behavior of his fan clubs that frightens me to no end...
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 7:25:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:07:01 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:46:28 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.

Prove your assertion that I can't be scientific for myself using the scientific method.

Your posts are the proof. Not one of them that I have read contains even a shred of substantiation.

I didn't set out to explain my rational or the experiments I have performed.

Your lack of knowledge is not proof of me being un-scientific.

The manner in which you come to your own conclusions should give you a hint as to how you yourself are not behaving scientifically.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Draconius
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 7:25:07 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:07:01 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:46:28 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.

Prove your assertion that I can't be scientific for myself using the scientific method.

Your posts are the proof. Not one of them that I have read contains even a shred of substantiation.

I didn't set out to explain my rational or the experiments I have performed.

This is as disingenuous a statement as I have seen you make, yet.

Your lack of knowledge is not proof of me being un-scientific.

My lack of knowledge on what topic? By whose judgment? Using what standard? By whose authority? Using what scale of measurement? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The manner in which you come to your own conclusions should give you a hint as to how you yourself are not behaving scientifically.

This sentence is a perfect example of how you use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Trying to cast a shadow of doubt on the factual statement that you are ignorant, uneducated, and barely literate serves to do nothing apart from proving that fact, over and over. Write something worth considering, and I'll consider it. You've type, so far, only that which is easily dismissed, in the same way it was presented: out of hand.
I have no problem with the existence of a "god." It is the behavior of his fan clubs that frightens me to no end...
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:07:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 7:37:55 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/29/2015 7:25:07 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:07:01 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:46:28 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.

Prove your assertion that I can't be scientific for myself using the scientific method.

Your posts are the proof. Not one of them that I have read contains even a shred of substantiation.

I didn't set out to explain my rational or the experiments I have performed.

This is as disingenuous a statement as I have seen you make, yet.

Your lack of knowledge is not proof of me being un-scientific.

My lack of knowledge on what topic? By whose judgment? Using what standard? By whose authority? Using what scale of measurement? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The manner in which you come to your own conclusions should give you a hint as to how you yourself are not behaving scientifically.

This sentence is a perfect example of how you use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Trying to cast a shadow of doubt on the factual statement that you are ignorant, uneducated, and barely literate serves to do nothing apart from proving that fact, over and over. Write something worth considering, and I'll consider it. You've type, so far, only that which is easily dismissed, in the same way it was presented: out of hand.

Ignorant, uneducated, and barely literate, huh?

I assume you have evidence to back your assertions?
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Draconius
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:40:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 9:07:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 7:37:55 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/29/2015 7:25:07 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:07:01 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:46:28 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:58 AM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/28/2015 7:35:17 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/27/2015 1:34:28 PM, Draconius wrote:
At 7/25/2015 4:49:43 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Everything literally effects everything instantaneously and non-locally in ways that defy traditional conceptions of causality.

There is something going on faster than light here. Entanglement is weird.

Bell's Theorem is way past weird.

I've begun to believe that you are a student of Deepak Chopra. His nonsensical strings of "logic" are also tied loosely to "science" by his carefully chosen words so as to be nearly impossible to refute, since the "abstract" sense of his "thoughts" can easily be morphed to mean ANYTHING other than what the opponent states. Chopra, too, speaks of "local" and "non-local" in a way that bears scrutiny, as the purpose of his rhetoric is often to confuse and preclude the intellectually deficient from questioning. Until you start backing your claims and assertions with something substantial, I'll simply consider you the same as I do Chopra -- to be dismissed.


I can't be scientific for you.

You can't even be scientific for yourself.

Prove your assertion that I can't be scientific for myself using the scientific method.

Your posts are the proof. Not one of them that I have read contains even a shred of substantiation.

I didn't set out to explain my rational or the experiments I have performed.

This is as disingenuous a statement as I have seen you make, yet.

Your lack of knowledge is not proof of me being un-scientific.

My lack of knowledge on what topic? By whose judgment? Using what standard? By whose authority? Using what scale of measurement? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The manner in which you come to your own conclusions should give you a hint as to how you yourself are not behaving scientifically.

This sentence is a perfect example of how you use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Trying to cast a shadow of doubt on the factual statement that you are ignorant, uneducated, and barely literate serves to do nothing apart from proving that fact, over and over. Write something worth considering, and I'll consider it. You've type, so far, only that which is easily dismissed, in the same way it was presented: out of hand.

Ignorant, uneducated, and barely literate, huh?

I assume you have evidence to back your assertions?

Again, your posts. Misspelled words, poor grammar, poor punctuation, junior-high level sentence structure, teenage "abstract" pseudo-philosophical construct using lots of words while imparting nothing of substance... I have all the evidence I need, from your own posts.
I have no problem with the existence of a "god." It is the behavior of his fan clubs that frightens me to no end...