Correct. Only fools will argue for a supernatural realm that they can know nothing about.

As to children, and here I am looking at the world in total and the U.N. 10 year warning,

We are clearly showing as ma species that we will not defend the lives of our children as we are giving them a corrupted environment to live and likely die in.

That not caring for our children shows that we collectively have apathetic souls.

Regards — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What do you mean die in? If a child lives to be 80 or even 22 that is different then if they die at 10 or 5. Not on my watch. Over my dead body.

thats fair.

Correct. Only fools will argue for a supernatural realm that they can know nothing about.

As to children, and here I am looking at the world in total and the U.N. 10 year warning,

We are clearly showing as ma species that we will not defend the lives of our children as we are giving them a corrupted environment to live and likely die in.

That not caring for our children shows that we collectively have apathetic souls.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

brb

What religion or philosophy grants all souls equality?

A poor religious trait seen in the worst of religions and mostly absent in the religions that seek knowledge and wisdom instead of imaginary supernatural gods. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well i disagree to a large extent that they are imaginary. Theres no use arguing over that aspect.

As for hate, anger and hate are a spectrum. Its alright to defend the lives of our children. To not care for our children shows that we have an apathetic soul.

Hate is indeed a human trait. So is love, and we default to love as our first instinct for survival. The hate is passed up from the bigoted peers.

IOWs, the religious feed the hate to maintain their tribal differences.

A poor religious trait seen in the worst of religions and mostly absent in the religions that seek knowledge and wisdom instead of imaginary supernatural gods.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

To some extent i agree with that. There is alot to be desired in modern Christianity.

Some Christians do keep Kosher considering the way many animals were killed at the turn of the 19th Century is concerned. Kosher laws were somewhat but not drastically altered in the New Testament. Essentially Kosher laws did not change in the New Testament except for being allowed to eat Pork (no blood though) and Lobster. Feel free to educate yourself on this before assuming you are all that knowledgable in the matter.

The book doesn't say who wrote the book about a Jewish prophet. What makes you think it was written by a Babylonian king? How would you prove it either way, except by textual exegesis and historical records? I say "apparently" because I was not there to witness the events related. Besides, if we can't prove it either way, why believe it? — Gnomon

Daniel wrote most of the book of Daniel according to Christians. It is essentially said right in the book. Ofcourse just like the Joan of Arc and all the magical things associated with her, they could be false.

Some (keyword some) of Group A hates all of group B. Insert any group into A and any group into B.

The Christian line is that Jesus altered Judaism (abolishing the "law", forgiving sins, and demanding faith in him) and welcomed non-Jews into the fold, while non-Christian Jews rejected him and his message - and even had him killed. — Relativist

actually Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it and in fact he went on to say that not a "tittle" of the law would be undermined until some distant future event. Many christians feel there are no negative repercussions for just about ignoring both the old testament as well as the new testament. From the 4th commandment to turning the other cheek, modern christians do a great job of saying they can do what they want as as long as they comply with R.I.N.O politics.

I'm not saying they aren't saved but in compliance with 1st Corinthians chapter 3 they aren't doing very well.

Some Jews hate Christians. Some Christians hate Jews. And some of group A hates group B.

Besides, early evangelists couldn't proselytize to Roman citizens that an official of Rome had lynched the very Lord who would "save" them, so the propaganda (Gospels) had to blame the "Jewish mob" - thus, by extension all Jews in perpetuity - of "deicide" who extorted Pilate to "Crucify him!" (i.e. blood libel)

Muslim antisemitism merely plagiarizes Christian antisemitism. Such is history. — 180 Proof

what a bunch of crap.

Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why do some Buddhists and Hindus hate Jews? Why do some Buddhists and Hindus hate Tengrists? Hate is a common feature in humanity. Even Christians either tremendously dislike others even if they for whatever reason claim not "hate" others. anger, dislike and hate is a spectrum.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ — 180 Proof

Why do you say this means that Jesus Christ would return in their lifetimes. Don't you think it would be ridicoulous for Jesus Christ to return just 50 years after his first coming. I don't think the idea for him to come twice in 50 years is not even according to the old testament. Christians believe that Jesus Christ can sustain life for well beyond 100 years. Scientists also believe that life can be sustained well beyond 100 years.

lol

How would we prove this to be true either way. Why the use of the word apparently? I think chapter 4 of the book of Daniel (could be a different chapter) was actually written by Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd himself. How would we go about proving for sure whether the book of Daniel was written at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd or at a much later date? It appears it would be highly beneficial to those who hate religion to say it was written much later. — christian2017

Well first of all according to Christians the book of Daniel was written around the time Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd just to clear up any confusion about what Christians claim.

If i understand you questions implications correctly, that was my whole point with the above quote, which is that just like whether Joan of Arc really experienced supernatural things we don't really know for sure whether the book was written at the time Christians say it was written. That being said in the encyclopedia (World Book) it says Joan of Arc did experience supernatural things. Is the encyclopedia wrong, it could be, but how would you or I prove that either way.

Some, such as those in Daniel were apparently written years after the events prophesied, hence retro-prophecy. — Gnomon

How would we prove this to be true either way. Why the use of the word apparently? I think chapter 4 of the book of Daniel (could be a different chapter) was actually written by Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd himself. How would we go about proving for sure whether the book of Daniel was written at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd or at a much later date? It appears it would be highly beneficial to those who hate religion to say it was written much later.

imagine the series of motions as a bunch of pictures. Together they flow to create time, but there is no time before the first motion. Gravity causes the whole series to move and time to flow, but there is no before so a God or anything else outside the series is not needed. The world is uncaused, having its own causality within it, as you say of the dude out there — Gregory

Thats a good point. I would argue there would have to be some entity or set of entities that cannot explain why they behave the way they do. I believe scientific determinism is the reality we live in (cause and effect going back billions of years). However I would imagine if you go back far enough it is intrinsically impossible to explain why things were set up a certain way or in the case of religion, why the creator or creator gods is the way that he/she is. Actually the name Yahweh is sometimes explained to mean "I Am" as in hes sitting around for X amount of time and finally he just accepts the fact that he is the way he is.

A programmer can explain statistics based random number generators (not random) and they can explain the program world they created, but the programmer can't explain why he prefers one entity over another or why he loves his one sibling more than his other sibling.

Einstein and Hawking, the two greatest thinkers of the last century, didn't think the universe required a God separate from it. — Gregory

ok, but thats besides the point. As time goes on peoples view points change. If you look at Einstein and Hawking there viewpoints changed over time.

You need to give up the the Newtonian idea of time — Gregory

Your assumption is that Einstein rejected all aspects of Newton's ideas on time. While he did change some things he didn't reject everything Newton believed on time.

We have a self-contained universe. — Gregory

Even modern physicists very often don't believe that. Have you read "A brief history of time" (Stephen Hawkings"). What do you mean by self contained assuming i'm misunderstanding that?

Actually the definition of 2 in the dictionary is 1+1. the definition of 10 is 9 + 1

You can actually get good at math just by memorizing definitions.

10 ofcourse to some extent requires knowing the defintion of 1 through 9.

The reason 2 was ever defined is because humans are much deeper thinkers than all known animals.

I'm sure some animals understand what 2 is to some degree.

Maybe this will help you rustle people's jimmies.

(1) Countries' legal systems should be able to punish those responsible for working conditions that provably and significantly impede health.

(2) Working conditions that provably and significantly contribute to death and sickness impede health. (1, consequence)

(3) There are many independent reports of working conditions at Orange significantly contributing to deaths and sickness and they should be trusted and treated as evidence. (Premise)

(4a) It is reasonable to believe that working conditions at Orange contributed significantly to deaths and sickness. (3, using the evidence).

(4b) It is unreasonable to believe that working conditions at Orange did not contribute significantly to deaths and sickness (3, using the evidence).

(5) France's legal system should be able to punish those responsible at Orange for the working conditions at their company as they provably and significantly impeded health. — fdrake

I essentially agree with this.

The logical meaning of something is "at least one". This definition of something is incomplete because if something means just "at least one" then all/everything, because it is indubitable at least one, is also something. Since logicians aren't prone to silly mistakes like this it's probably the case that the definition of something is at least one but not ALL and it's so obvious that it's left undeclared. — TheMadFool

In systems analysis and design there is a concept where A might be said to be of type B but B is not in every case the same as A.

Logicians very often embrace a systems analysis and design approach. Its like when the wizard answers the question with "yes and no".

You can quantify analog systems (like a compact disc high sampling rate) with 1000s of data points to simulate a analog system within a digital system.

I agree. Particles effect human action and a pair of identical twins with out a doubt have particles in different locations despite the fact that their dna is identical or close to identical. Even if the difference is what would commonly be called a trace difference. (such as humans have a trace amount gold in their bodies). If one twin wore a gold ring and the other didn't, one would probably have slightly more gold in his/her system. Gold to some extent is good for the human body.

Insight in my opinion is a educated guess done by a somewhat ignorant person.
— christian2017
Fine, but what is the function of the neural net in biology and machines then? What does it do? I refer to its output as insight. What do you call it? — Mikey

I do believe in abolute truth but i believe rational people will usually settle for close enough. NASA actually does leave a extremely small amount of room for error it is just the amount of room for error is extremely small. Insight to some extent is a non scientific way to help ourselves make better decisions. Ultimately being precise is not as important as being happy.

I believe there is a strong or weak connection between all phrases including language phrases. I believe while leaving room for some small amount of error, all notions, facts and also non contradicting phrases can be quantified, typically in the form of a curved (parabola for example) line. With enough pain staking effort all fields of study can be quantified. A 3d object is produced with binary computers and thus when something is quantified it is a form of simplification. Insight in my opinion is a educated guess done by a somewhat ignorant person. We all in fact make minor and major insights every day such as hunting for a deer in the forest and finding poop on the ground.

i had the insight that unicorns exist, people would call that religion. Insight is some times built on the foundation of logic but to some extent it is a leap of faith into the unknown.

i agree with this for the most part. In the area i live if you can't get a security clearance, it can be very hard to get a job unless you are trained as a mechanic.

Statistics is a tool used for people to make decisions, it does not typically always take into account all the laws of physics and chemistry (not all of these laws are known and also to calculate them is really hard anyway). A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings addresses the problem that even if all known laws are known it is still very hard to calculate particle interactions (quantum mechanics for example).

You can help predict who will win a billairds game using statistics but that doesn't mean the statistician knows the laws of physics. Statistics is a very sloppy form of mathematics and is very different from Physics and Chemistry.

Its a common thing everyone goes through. I fear people who are very successful and who are towards the top of the latter are most likely to experience this more often. I believe the cure is to make a facade to yourself that those around you are real people with real feelings.

I wish you the best and hope you get to the top as a team of people and not by yourself. The author of the book of psalms experienced this in my opinion.

great forum topic.

You need to stop kicking people's asses. This is fun to watch though.

Are you a 100% positive or 99%? I like an opponent that is over confident. Look up the definition of a circle in a geometry book.

We will never, ever, be able to empirically prove spacetime is continuous, but we might be able to empirically prove it is discrete. — Devans99

cool. I agree a circle for instance doesn't exist in nature. Its a philosophical concept. There are things that are very close to being circles but nothing actually fits the definition described in a geometry text book.

i guess.

Statistics (as you point out) show some understanding of particle events in the aggregate. The obvious question is, "What makes the individual particles behave as they do, so that they produce the aggregate behavior?"

For example, if 100 coins are thrown in the air and allowed to land on the floor, there will be about 50 heads and 50 tails. If the actual numbers are 52 heads and 48 tails, we might ask why that is so. The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes.

The classical laws of physics can, in principle, provide the answer so long as the initial conditions of the coins, and the environmental conditions, are known. The outcome is predictable and comprehended.

There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood. — GeorgeTheThird

Correct. It could be thousands of years before understanding all the nuances of particles interaction is understood.

Yes, and that's a mistake. They're not doing the same thing - that's why 'science' exists as a distinct discipline.

These questions: what is morality? what is free will? what is truth? what is time? and so on, are 'not' questions science investigates. Why? Because you can't answer them by looking down a microscope. You have to apply your intelligence to them - that is, you have to reason. The questions have answers, but you're not going to find them by inspecting sensible matter ever more closely.

Without applying some field of mathematics or even a science, how do you expect to get a real answer other than "time is a banana split sundae."?
— christian2017

And there it is: the arrogant dismissal of philosophy. You're one of those people you just mentioned above, aren't you? — Bartricks

You won't have to look hard to find a pompous person on a philosophy forum. I believe to divorce systems analysis and design from any field of study is intellectual suicide.

I believe logic is a form of math and that phrases can in fact be systematically quantified. I'm not alone on this.

Once again you seem fairly young. Perhaps in 10 years we can have an intelligent conversation. Welcome to the online forum.

Question begging - you're just assuming that time is a stuff or dimension, that it is something we travel about in. I provided 3 arguments that appear to refute that idea. You've just blithely ignored them. — Bartricks

Actually i agree with you on that point. The other stuff you said really isn't even worth arguing over. If you don't see how mathematic principles can be applied to everything or almost everything, maybe i'll teach you some other time or maybe someone else will.

Without applying some field of mathematics or even a science, how do you expect to get a real answer other than "time is a banana split sundae."?

Read a book on geometry and you'll quickly find this isn't the case.

. is location in space

a line is an infininte of the above (marked as .) that all are in line with two relatively "extreme" points

....A............B....

A and B are the supposed relatively extreme points

A geometry book would do a much better job.

If you read a book on geometry or just about any math book that systematically defines something then you'll quickly realize even basic concepts very often have elaborate definitions.