Re: Do you think?

John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
R Brown wrote:
"(M)-adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:35iLk.49283$XT1.27664@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
eroot@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 20, 1:08 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
R Brown wrote:
"(M)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vLQKk.44476$IB6.28922@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
R Brown wrote:
"spintronic" <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:09d229bf-9532-4f1d-9fa4-3d1ffea52b1d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you think progress would hurry along at a quicker pace,
if you guys were not so:
"selfish, paranoid, had such a feeling of self importance,
and weren't so dumb"?
What progress are you looking for? A total reformation of
science to accept supernatural explanations for natural
events?
Bingo!
Saying anything else is saying the thousands of ancient texts
handed down to mankind are lying.
A hardly scientific position to taske.
I'm curious. How does a rational person decide precisely when
to ditch the natural explanation in favour of the supernateral
explanation? Where is the line? Do you know of some test that
can be performed that would indicate to us all exactly when to
make the switch, or is it simply a matter of personal
convenience or preference?
You either do, or do not understand things that are spiritual
in nature.


Well, then, if you understand, then go ahead and explain it. If
you can't explain it, then you don't really understand it.

What types of evidence will you accept?

And no, you cannot apply physical science to something that is
not physical

Agreed. Physical (empirical) science is ill-equiped to investigate
that which is not physical (empirical). For example, science is
not capable of answering the question, "How many fairies can
dance on the head of a pin?" However, those who have beliefs with
regard to the qualities of fairies are free to offer as many
explanations as they like on the matter. None of those
explanations will obtain any traction in empirical science
because they do not have an empirical basis and are still beyond
empirical investigation. Why then do creationists hold the
expectation that their non-empirical explanations for natural
events should resonate in the empirical sciences? We agree that
the physical world cannot be applied to the non-physical world.
Why won't you agree that the non-physical world cannot be applied
to the physical world? How come one way, but not t'other? Your
thoughts?
Neithr are an common occurance.

"I was taken into the third heaven" (latter returned) would be an
example of physical encroachment into the supernatural. Several
places in the bible mention physical man being removed from this
plain of existance, moved into another, then moved back. NDE's are
another. One can choose to believe these events or not believe
these events because these evidences can be rationalized as true
or false. Which is what God wants. A choice made during this short
time we have here. Sometimes the non-physical encroaches into this
physical realm through the physical. AFAIK God has had no direct
involvement since the creation and then the garden. But he has sent
what we call
angels, as well as prophets, that has influenced mankind. Take
Jesus for instance. One person changed the course of human history for
more then 2000 years. Even if there never was a Jesus, the positive
idea of Jesus has lasted for 2000 years. That is an example of
supernatural influence and it's effects on the natural world.
Another example would be Hitler. One obscure man during WW1 rose to
power for WW2 in such a short time and created a negative yet
fortifiable force that could have changed history forever. These
are examples of how the supernatural encroaches the natural via the
physical. Would either of these obscure men have risen to such
prominence with
such lasting effects with out the help of the supernatural?
Doubtful but still possible. The concept of Jesus is still here.
Nuclear
bombs are still with us long after Hitler.
Whoa, let's get this straight. Are you actually claiming that Hitler
was a supernatural event? An angel? A prophet?

God's enemy has been countering good for evil step by step. Hitler
was a supernatiral event for the darker side of things

So you're a manichaean? Weird.

Nope. Although i do believe curent teachings are incomplete. Misleading.

To me, it would seem
more like a good counterargument to your claim that Jesus was
supernatural because he changed the world. Hitler changed the world
with nothing more than fanaticism, boldness, cunning, and the
ability to take advantage of events. No supernatural causation
necessary. The sum total of your evidence is your disbelief that he
could have happened naturally. So is every important historical
figure the result of supernatural intervention? Genghis Khan?
Mohammed? Napoleon? Gautama? Lenin? Darwin? How would we tell? And
is this all god's fault, or are there more deities playing with the
world?

Basically you have lied.

You said:
"Agreed. Physical (empirical) science is ill-equiped to investigate
that which is not physical (empirical)."

No, that wasn't me.


I give you examples of what may be supernatural intervention (not
based on science) and you scoff.

How can we distinguish supernatural intervention from just plain
folks?

Ya can't. The preponderance of events and evidence is your best shot. Being
intouch with your spiritual side helps interpatate the events and evidence.

And yes, Genghis Khan Napoleon Gautama Lenin Darwin PolPot Satan
and many others are all examples of negetive supernatural
intervention. The traits fanaticism, boldness, cunning, and the
ability to take advantage of events are used for and inspired by
forces that was not part of man's original design..

How do you know this? Hey, if Napoleon was supernatural, how about the
Duke of Wellington? What about Davout? Blucher? How far does this go,
and how can you tell?

Many ask why God did not make a perfect creation. He did. His
rebellious child Satan rebelled against Him and us.

So you claim that Satan has the power to thwart God's wishes. That's
generally considered a heresy among Christians. I recall that you
haven't claimed to be a Christian, but manichaeism is a bit overboard,
if you ask me.

It is called spirtual warfare. And i assure you. It is real. No heresy
involved.


"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed
in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares
among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up
and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the
servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou
not sow good seed in thy field? From whence then has it tares? He
said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him,
Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay: lest
while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest
I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares and
bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my
barn." - Matthew 13:24-30, KJV God sowed the good seed. (humans) after
creating the universe and
the earth. The enemy is satan. The seed was satan and ilk taking on
human bodies and mating with mortal women. The servants are God's
loyal Angels that did not leave their proper places and sleep with
mortal women. Everything became corrupted. God created a Garden with Adam
to bring
forth a pure blood line that had not mixed with Angels. From this
bloodline would come the last Adam, the messiah that would bruise
the head of the one that has caused so much destruction on the
earth. But the Adam and Eve made the wrong choice also. They fell
prey to the temptations on the earth. The sins and corruption became
so bad on earth that man's blood cried to the gates of heaven. God's
loyal servents asked God if they should go pull up the bad wheat or
tares. But God said no, since some good may get pulled up with the
bad. On the last day God will say:
in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together
first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather
the wheat into my barn.

You are one scary, sick puppy.

I gave you a very abbreviated version. Details sometimes mean a lot.

Truth is often stranger then fiction.

What's a tare?


Weeds.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do you think?
    ... you cannot apply physical science to something that is ... Which is what God wants. ... The sum total of your evidence is your disbelief that he ... then appeared the tares also. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you think?
    ... you cannot apply physical science to something that is not ... the qualities of fairies are free to offer as many explanations as ... Which is what God wants. ... But when the blade was sprung up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you think?
    ... example, science is not capable of answering the question, ... fairies are free to offer as many explanations as they like ... Which is what God wants. ... then appeared the tares also. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you think?
    ... you cannot apply physical science to something that is not ... the qualities of fairies are free to offer as many explanations as ... Which is what God wants. ... then appeared the tares also. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you think?
    ... For example, science is ... explanations as they like on the matter. ... Which is what God wants. ... then appeared the tares also. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading