trollface
Quantum Scribe
Re: Cookbook for Creation
I haven't got much time this morning, so just a quickie. I'll come back to this later.
Wow. And yet most scientists don't believe in God. Maybe they're just not as clever as you?
I attempt to determine the veracity of things to try to ensure that my beliefs are built on solid foundations, and that's a product of my egoism? And yet you claim to know (and I quote) "THE Truth", and this is, what, altruistic? Selfless? Humbling?
Good Lord, I don't claim that what I believe is necessarily true, I just claim that it's what seems most likely to me, given my perspective and what I have seen. You claim to be one of the few people in this world intelligent and enlightened enough to have aquired definitive proof of not only the existence of God, but the complete understanding of His nature. I think it's patently obvious which of us is on an ego trip.
I didn't say that it was insignificant in all aspects of life. If you want to look at a subject which rotation was a key factor of, then it's significant.
In the same way if you were studying literature it would be significant to know the history of the Bronte sisters and why they had to write using pseudonyms. But I wouldn't call it significant in the greater scheme of things.
Asking you for enlightenment is somewhat like asking the dog for all the use it is. You're not exactly forthcoming. See how many times I had to ask you what your opinion was with regards to observation and creation. Or how you've said that if I'd like to know more about the things that you talk about how I'd have to pay for it, because you're a teacher. See? Just for you, there's evidence that you're deliberately difficult and obtuse about such things.
See the chia pet example I gave at the time. OR, for further "evidence", here's a phrase you should have heard before - "GIGO". Or it's variation (which seems more appropriate here) - "GIGOL".
You'd like me to prove that something is possible? You admit that the universe being like it is is unlikely, so you know that it's not a statistical impossibility. I'm not claiming that the universe did come about as it is by accident, I'm claiming that it seems reasonable to me that it did. So, you already know that "proof" of this.
Yes, because calculators are self-replicating with errors and mutations...
Um, well, just off the top of my head for starters, we have vestigal tails, the appendix and all the other evidence that we evolved from lower beings.
I ignored it and claimed it wasn't evidence? That's a good trick. What, did I claim it wasn't evidence by use of some secret code? Was it my subconsious (sorry, my soul) that made it evident to you without me consiously saying anything?
So every systems engineer in the world believes as you do? If not, why don't you show them your evidence? You'd have a whole bunch of people proclaiming the proof of the existence of God. I mean, with all the systems engineers and all the scientists in the world in agreement with you the hearts and minds of the general public will surely follow. You could be the person responsible for allowing the human race to finally become enlightened, to know the truth and to go to our next stage of evolution. I suggest you write to both New Scientist and Nature right now. Go! Now! Before someone beats you to it!
Have I said that? Can you give me the full quote in context, please?
Again, I don't think I said that. You'll provide the full quote for me, won't you?
Actually, that kind of helps to prove my point. If, as you agree, there are many possible interpretations of the original Hebrew, then why do you believe that the one in which God says something 10 times is the right one? Confirmation bias, perchance? Imagine that. You will, of course, have no problem at least detailing the passages which make reference to all 3 things that you claim.
I have never claimed to be presenting anything other than my opinion. As an amateur semiologist, I don't even believe there is such a thing as "the ONLY 'right' view". It is you who claims to hold the key to "THE Truth". I think you're projecting, here.
That would be an opinion.
I have claimed no such thing. I have not read the text and so cannot comment. I have merely said that what you have claimed it claims seems wrong to me from the evidence I have seen. For all I know you're getting everything it says arse-backwards and the book is completely right.
I did not say that about that book. Wow, do you have to take quotes out of context and change their meaning to try to prove me wrong now? That's unbelieveably bad debating there, son.
No it isn't.
Why? Would you like me to come up with a list of people who haven't found pertinence in it? I'm sure we could have a lot of fun posting irrelevent names at each other, but it wouldn't prove one single thing.
I haven't got much time this morning, so just a quickie. I'll come back to this later.
This principle, which is at the heart of my Massive SpaceTime 3x3 Matrix theory, is indeed borne-out by the fact of Heisenberg Uncertainty.
Wow. And yet most scientists don't believe in God. Maybe they're just not as clever as you?
Given how often you seek to feed your ego with judgments of "right" from "wrong", I would say you have one hungry ego.
I attempt to determine the veracity of things to try to ensure that my beliefs are built on solid foundations, and that's a product of my egoism? And yet you claim to know (and I quote) "THE Truth", and this is, what, altruistic? Selfless? Humbling?
Good Lord, I don't claim that what I believe is necessarily true, I just claim that it's what seems most likely to me, given my perspective and what I have seen. You claim to be one of the few people in this world intelligent and enlightened enough to have aquired definitive proof of not only the existence of God, but the complete understanding of His nature. I think it's patently obvious which of us is on an ego trip.
If one wished to understand such massive energetic forms such as the Great Spot on Jupiter, or terrestrial hurricanes that form in the South Atlantic, do you not think that understanding the principles of rotation would be a highly significant aspect of such an understanding?
I didn't say that it was insignificant in all aspects of life. If you want to look at a subject which rotation was a key factor of, then it's significant.
In the same way if you were studying literature it would be significant to know the history of the Bronte sisters and why they had to write using pseudonyms. But I wouldn't call it significant in the greater scheme of things.
[...]for you have not asked to be enlightened.
Asking you for enlightenment is somewhat like asking the dog for all the use it is. You're not exactly forthcoming. See how many times I had to ask you what your opinion was with regards to observation and creation. Or how you've said that if I'd like to know more about the things that you talk about how I'd have to pay for it, because you're a teacher. See? Just for you, there's evidence that you're deliberately difficult and obtuse about such things.
I would like to see some solid evidence that what you say here is correct, now that I have provided evidence that it is incorrect.
See the chia pet example I gave at the time. OR, for further "evidence", here's a phrase you should have heard before - "GIGO". Or it's variation (which seems more appropriate here) - "GIGOL".
I would like to see evidence for this belief.
You'd like me to prove that something is possible? You admit that the universe being like it is is unlikely, so you know that it's not a statistical impossibility. I'm not claiming that the universe did come about as it is by accident, I'm claiming that it seems reasonable to me that it did. So, you already know that "proof" of this.
Yet you can see some evidence for potential "evolution" of this beast, because you see the similarity to calculators, adding machines, and the like.
Yes, because calculators are self-replicating with errors and mutations...
Please provide some sound evidence for why you believe this is the more credible belief.
Um, well, just off the top of my head for starters, we have vestigal tails, the appendix and all the other evidence that we evolved from lower beings.
You ignored it and claimed it was not evidence.
I ignored it and claimed it wasn't evidence? That's a good trick. What, did I claim it wasn't evidence by use of some secret code? Was it my subconsious (sorry, my soul) that made it evident to you without me consiously saying anything?
Since I have provided evidence on this subject that any control systems engineer would clearly find acceptable and correct[...]
So every systems engineer in the world believes as you do? If not, why don't you show them your evidence? You'd have a whole bunch of people proclaiming the proof of the existence of God. I mean, with all the systems engineers and all the scientists in the world in agreement with you the hearts and minds of the general public will surely follow. You could be the person responsible for allowing the human race to finally become enlightened, to know the truth and to go to our next stage of evolution. I suggest you write to both New Scientist and Nature right now. Go! Now! Before someone beats you to it!
I challenge you to provide me with solid evidence for your stance that energy, entropy, and information are "not at all related".
Have I said that? Can you give me the full quote in context, please?
[...]and you are so "right" in the fact that the link you provide is the ONLY "right" interpretation of the original Hebrew...
Again, I don't think I said that. You'll provide the full quote for me, won't you?
Here we see that your very own reference, that you seem to claim is the "final word" on Hebrew translation of Genesis, is hedging its translation!
Actually, that kind of helps to prove my point. If, as you agree, there are many possible interpretations of the original Hebrew, then why do you believe that the one in which God says something 10 times is the right one? Confirmation bias, perchance? Imagine that. You will, of course, have no problem at least detailing the passages which make reference to all 3 things that you claim.
Can you possibly see that this is why I will ignore the living hell out of you when you jump on your high-horse and pronounce your view as the ONLY "right" view?
I have never claimed to be presenting anything other than my opinion. As an amateur semiologist, I don't even believe there is such a thing as "the ONLY 'right' view". It is you who claims to hold the key to "THE Truth". I think you're projecting, here.
Gematria is not just "Numerology"[...]
That would be an opinion.
Which you seem to wish to dismiss as bunk and "wrong"[...]
I have claimed no such thing. I have not read the text and so cannot comment. I have merely said that what you have claimed it claims seems wrong to me from the evidence I have seen. For all I know you're getting everything it says arse-backwards and the book is completely right.
And for you to pompously dismiss it with words such as:[...]
I did not say that about that book. Wow, do you have to take quotes out of context and change their meaning to try to prove me wrong now? That's unbelieveably bad debating there, son.
The fact that a large number of great scholars from history have found great use and knowledge within this book is "evidence".
No it isn't.
I would ask OvrLrdLegion to once again post his list of names of people who have found pertinence in Kabbalah.
Why? Would you like me to come up with a list of people who haven't found pertinence in it? I'm sure we could have a lot of fun posting irrelevent names at each other, but it wouldn't prove one single thing.