Cant have it both ways

[S-word]

Originally Posted by imaginaryme

That's what I just said, only you clarified it. The body is irrelevant, food for worms. It is what animates it that is important. Now that we're getting along, what were we arguing about?

Thanks for the input on Imhotep, btw. I have seen god in the numbers, so something of god may be proven mathematically; I'm not the first nor only to recognize this, but I might be the one at the right place in the right time. Or, I'm chasing wind.

Post 48...Quote...imaginaryme: Not a few words, six pages. S-words response:The number of pages depends upon which bible you are reading from. Quote...imaginaryme: Not cancels out, summates. S-words response:If you believe that Ecclesiastes, the satirical work of Solomon aimed at those who believe in neither life after death or the resurrection is a summary of the entire bible then you are surely blowing off wind. Quote...imaginaryme: The living DO NOT KNOW they will die, the living assume. Such things cannot be known; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind. This is why I enjoy Ecclesiastes. It is a razor that is all blade and no handle.

Post 52...Quote...S-word:The living DO NOT ASSUME that they will die, the living KNOW THAT THEY WILL DIE. the first death; that is, the death of the body and its return to the universal elements from which it was formed, only a fool would believe that they will not die. Even the man Jesus was said to have been made dead in the flesh, but alive in spirit. Can you, with all your mathematical skills determine how many people have never died, or how many people will never die?
Although the living know they will die, they can only assume that the spirit does not survive the first death and that the dead know nothing, for such things cannot be proved mathematically; claiming such knowledge is a chasing after the wind.

Post 56...Quote...imaginaryme: That's what I just said, S-words response: No! What you said was that the living do NOT KNOW they will die, they assume, what I said was that the living DO KNOW that they will die although there are some who assume that the mind=spiritdoes not continue on after the death of the body.

Quote...imaginaryme: The body is irrelevant, food for worms. It is what animates it that is important. S-words response: How can the body be irrelevant when it is the womb in which you the mind=spirit were formed? You, the godhead that has developed in that physical body are but the compilation of all the knowledge and experiences that were taken into that womb as the spiritual food from which (YOU) were formed and from which you (The spirit) continue to evolve. Were that body born malformed, lacking the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, then you (The godhead) could not have been formed and the body would have remained nothing more than an animated lump of living meat until it returned to the universal elements from which it was formed.

Quote...imaginaryme: Now that we're getting along, what were we arguing about?
S-words response: Well I wouldn’t say that we’re getting along, and nor do we argue on this forum, we debate and we point out where we believe a person is mistaken and give support and added substance to those beliefs with which we agree, such as your belief that it is that which animates the body which is important.

The Logos that was in the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universal body that it has become; it is the life force into which all the experiences and information that is gathered by the living receivers that have evolved within the greater universal body is imprinted. When your body, skin, hair, muscles, bone, brain matter etc, have returned to the universal body of which it is one, the facsimile of you that had developed within that body will have been imprinted on the universal life force that once animated your body, and you will live again when the living universal body is resurrected once again after it has been condensed back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, and descended into the great abyss, and is once more blasted out to continue the eternal process of growth or evolution.

Origin held to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that precedes the next creative day.


Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

In reference to the six Biblical periods of creation and the seventh period of rest, it is said in Genesis 2: 4, “These are the generations of the universe.”
The Hebrew word used here is ‘toledoth,’ which is used only in reference to descendants, as in, “These are the generations (toledoth) of Adam,” or “These are the generations (toledoth) of Abraham.”

And it is written in the words of righteous Enoch, that God created an eighth day also (The eternal cosmic cycle in which the seven foetal stages of each universal body in which a universal mind or Son of God develops, are forever repeated) and it is a day eternal, in which there is neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time shall be stuck together in one aeon and all who enter therein shall be surrounded by great light and they shall know peace.

Thanks for the input on Imhotep, btw. I have seen god in the numbers, so something of god may be proven mathematically; I'm not the first nor only to recognize this, but I might be the one at the right place in the right time. Or, I'm chasing wind.

No receiver is chasing the wind, were it not for the Logos (The divine animating principle that pervade the enire universal body), the death of every person would be the destruction of an entire and wonderful library. May you achieve the peace that you seek on whatever path you choose to follow.

[skydivephil]

Originally Posted by Minus Habens

Yes, he mentioned he did not agree with it. He didn't laugh at the idea, though.

I wonder who decides who "serious" scientists are?

This statement form the National Academy of Science might help:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evo...entDesign.html


""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.
Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design...However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes...Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education."


More importantly ask yourself how many peer reviewed scientific papers there are with ID as the conclusion? Almost everything you see justifying ID is in popular books written for the lay audience. They do not present their arguments in respected academic journals because as the National Academy of Science rightly points out their ideas are not scientific.

[Minus Habens]

Originally Posted by skydivephil

This statement form the National Academy of Science might help:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.
Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design...However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes...Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education."


More importantly ask yourself how many peer reviewed scientific papers there are with ID as the conclusion? Almost everything you see justifying ID is in popular books written for the lay audience. They do not present their arguments in respected academic journals because as the National Academy of Science rightly points out their ideas are not scientific.

Might help what? I am only saying the latest scientific theories are supernatural. I am not claiming any of them are credible... Do you think the idea of 7 extra deminsions is any more credible? How about infinite universes? Anywhooo... point taken, champ.

[skydivephil]

The latest scientific theories are not supernatural. Until Hubble no one knew that planetary nebula were actually extra galaxies. If there turn out to be extra dimensions or even extra universes then why is this any more supernatural than the discovery that the MIlky Way is not the only galaxy? Adding an extra number to a known value, like the number of galaxies or the number of spatial dimensions does not make it super natural. At the moment neither of these ideas are testable, but within a few years they may become so. The LHC at CERN might be able to demonstrate if extra dimensions exist. We shall see.

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/...se-hypothesis/

http://www.lhccern.com/2008/05/19/ce...ra-dimensions/

The difference between these idea and religious ideas are that scientists wait for the experimental test before they jump to conclusions. I have read several books by many string theorists such as Brian Green and Michiu Kaku, none of them claim string theory is a fact, They always use phrases such as "if string theory is true" . Perhaps religious people should consider the same approach.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by skydivephil

...none of them claim string theory is a fact, They always use phrases such as "if string theory is true" . Perhaps religious people should consider the same approach.

Then it wouldn't be religion.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Minus Habens

Might help what? I am only saying the latest scientific theories are supernatural.

If the supernatural turns out to be real, then it was perfectly natural to begin with; nothing "super" about it.

[Minus Habens]

Originally Posted by skydivephil

At the moment neither of these ideas are testable, but within a few years they may become so. The LHC at CERN might be able to demonstrate if extra dimensions exist. We shall see.

It will be interesting, to say the least.

[Minus Habens]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

If the supernatural turns out to be real, then it was perfectly natural to begin with; nothing "super" about it.

That is true.

[imaginaryme]

Originally Posted by skydivephil

The latest scientific theories are not supernatural. Until Hubble no one knew that planetary nebula were actually extra galaxies. If there turn out to be extra dimensions or even extra universes then why is this any more supernatural than the discovery that the MIlky Way is not the only galaxy? Adding an extra number to a known value, like the number of galaxies or the number of spatial dimensions does not make it super natural. At the moment neither of these ideas are testable, but within a few years they may become so. The LHC at CERN might be able to demonstrate if extra dimensions exist. We shall see.

Big Bangs Before The Big Bang?: Testing the Multiverse Hypothesis « Prometheus Unbound

CERN - EXTRA DIMENSIONS

The difference between these idea and religious ideas are that scientists wait for the experimental test before they jump to conclusions. I have read several books by many string theorists such as Brian Green and Michiu Kaku, none of them claim string theory is a fact, They always use phrases such as "if string theory is true" . Perhaps religious people should consider the same approach.

Come on, now. I've just spent the day reading summaries on Science Daily. There's plenty of scientists who are full of "religious nonsense," who posit unproven hypotheses as fact. With dark matter especially, but with string theory as well.

[skydivephil]

We have lost of good evidence that dark matter exists. Go on wikipedia:
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
youll see 4 independent lines of evidence pointing to dark matter. Notice also the ongoing experiments trying to detect dark matter. See a theme? yes scientists look to do eperiments to confirm or dey their idea with experiments. If experiments continually fail to detet dark matter then I can assure there will be a rethink. In fact some physicists have looked at rewriting one of their most cherised equation f=ma as a result.
Modified Newtonian dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is not in any way comparable to supernatural beliefs which are not open to experimental testing.
Onto string theory, string theorists , on the whole, do not go around saying string theory is a fact. They know its a specualtive diea and they say so. You are constructing a straw man. Look at this web page for string theoriests :
Looking for extra dimensions
Note that phrase "Superstring theory is a possible unified theory of all fundamental forces"
Ever the accepted godfather of string theory , Ed witten said this:

"Critics of string theory say that it might be too big a step. Most physicists in other fields are simply agnostic and properly so," says Witten. "It isn't an established theory. My personal opinion is that there are circumstantial reasons to suspect that it's on the right track. "
Now stop making straw men out of scientists. Sceintists have no problem with specualtive ideas as long as they are reognsied as such, that they do clearly.

Now stop creating straw men