• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

Iacchus said:
No, I was only saying that I don't recall having said the material world was contingent upon the spiritual world, yet. That in fact I had put it this way, to reiterate that it was ... i.e., contingent.
Click to expand...

Oops, yer right. I re-read it. "Actually, I don't recall having said (in so many words) that the material world was wholly contingent upon the spiritual world." I missed the first part of that phrase. sorry....:blush:
 
Iacchus said:
No, I was only saying that I don't recall having said the material world was contingent upon the spiritual world, yet. That in fact I had put it this way, to reiterate that it was ... i.e., contingent.
Click to expand...

NOw that the air is cleared on that....

Yet???
 
Taffer said:
Please explain how Photons are glue. Do you, perhaps, mean gluons?
Click to expand...
No. I don't perceive things at the gluon level. Do you? And that's my last comment here on that topic.

But I asked you what you think.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, my magic 8-ball says .... ;)

How can you reach a logical conclusion about that which happened before space/time, of which logic is a part?
Click to expand...
It's still undecided if chatting about things before the big bang has meaning. Some physicists think it might, iirc.


Sorry that "The Theory (neo-Ev)" bothers you so. I find it explicit in meaning.
 
kmortis said:
NOw that the air is cleared on that....

Yet???
Click to expand...
About all I can say, based upon what I know, I try to put it in as consistent a manner as possible. If I didn't believe in spirits and the spiritual world, I wouldn't waste my time trying to explain how the rest of it works. You can't fault me for not attempting to do so, however.
 
hammegk said:
No. I don't perceive things at the gluon level. Do you? And that's my last comment here on that topic.
Click to expand...

And the other senses?

It's still undecided if chatting about things before the big bang has meaning. Some physicists think it might, iirc.
Click to expand...

Care to name some names? Space/time pretty much rules out a "before" to be before the big bang, you know.

Sorry that "The Theory (neo-Ev)" bothers you so. I find it explicit in meaning.
Click to expand...

"Neo-Evolution" is an incorrect label, as that implies it is different from the conventional form. It is, in fact, not. Tweaked, to fit the evidence, perhaps, but not different. I am not bothered by "The Theory", I just asked why you refer to it as such.
 
Iacchus said:
About all I can say, based upon what I know, I try to put it in as consistent a manner as possible. If I didn't believe in spirits and the spiritual world, I wouldn't waste my time trying to explain how the rest of it works. You can't fault me for not attempting to do so, however.
Click to expand...

"Belief" does not equal proof. Without any form of evidence, you are not likely to be taken all that seriously here, I'm afraid. This is a board for skeptics. That is to say, this is a board for people who do not believe things blindly, without evidence.
 
Iacchus said:
About all I can say, based upon what I know, I try to put it in as consistent a manner as possible. If I didn't believe in spirits and the spiritual world, I wouldn't waste my time trying to explain how the rest of it works. You can't fault me for not attempting to do so, however.
Click to expand...

Iacchus, I do not deny that you had some experiences that you then attribute to a Greater Power or some such. However, if this external info cannot be tested, what frelling good is it? You have all these assertations that you've put forth, and yet you support none of them.

If this were a religious/spiritual board (like the one you run) that might be fine, but here we ask for a bit more proof. It's not, however, and thus the onus falls upon you to bring forth the evidence that this spiritual realm occurs.

Speaking only for myself; if this realm makes you feel better, if it helps you get through your day because you believe in it and it doen't influence you to harm another being, then go for it. But, if you're going to then assert to other people (like you've done here) that it exists, you need to back it up with more than just "I said so"'s. Understand?
 
Belz... said:
Actually, photons are apparently responsible for the fact that two objects can "touch" one another by providing some sort of barrier. Otherwise we'd all pass through everything.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought this was due to the strong and weak forces?
 
You again? I thought you'd be learning some elementary physics ... :)

Ask Uppie to help: he has "links".



As to Hawking's ideas on Time, find them out for yourselves. I've gone as far as I'm willing to.
 
hammegk said:
As to Hawking's ideas on Time, find them out for yourselves. I've gone as far as I'm willing to.
Click to expand...
I'm somewhat familiar with Hawking's ideas on Time. I'm not aware of him saying anything like what you are claiming. And, of course, it is your responsibility to back your own claims.
 
Taffer said:
"Belief" does not equal proof. Without any form of evidence, you are not likely to be taken all that seriously here, I'm afraid. This is a board for skeptics. That is to say, this is a board for people who do not believe things blindly, without evidence.
Click to expand...
Ah, well, what is proof, without a disciplined mind to receive it?
 
Upchurch said:
I'm somewhat familiar with Hawking's ideas on Time. I'm not aware of him saying anything like what you are claiming.
Click to expand...
Imagine that!

Why not spend a couple minutes with google and get the answer from a source you trust. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom