Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do indeed make that request by putting out your theories and defending them as though they are fact, by doing so with conviction you put your credentials on the line, that very action makes a request, if it is not request who do it and go to all this trouble to defend it why not just say this is what I believe, it does not follow the scientific method, make what you will of it? As to science it is not consistent because it does not follow the scientific method that is basic.
You mistake sharing the reasons for my belief in God consciousness as a request. I defend my beliefs for the same reason anyone else does . . . they are being attacked or disputed. My conviction applies only to ME. As to my claim of consistency with what we DO know in science . . . that is true. Nothing in my rationale and theory of our relationship to God consciousness VIOLATES anything we know so far in science . . . that does NOT mean I am claiming that my personal reasons for certainty have been explicitly validated by scientific method.
You mistake sharing the reasons for my belief in God consciousness as a request. I defend my beliefs for the same reason anyone else does . . . they are being attacked or disputed. My conviction applies only to ME. As to my claim of consistency with what we DO know in science . . . that is true. Nothing in my rationale and theory of our relationship to God consciousness VIOLATES anything we know so far in science . . . that does NOT mean I am claiming that my personal reasons for certainty have been explicitly validated by scientific method.
It may not violate science; however, it is not confirmed by it either, but as someone who is getting ready to study law I can tell you that just because something fulfills a necessary condition does not mean that it is correct. I.e. If Jenny wears only blue and yellow socks. One cannot definitely claim say Jenny wore yellow socks. Now you may have seen Jenny wear yellow socks, but that can be easily disputed by another person saying no I saw Jenny wear blue socks. These types of disputes often occur in religion, with different religions saying different things. In law this is what is casually known as a case of "he said...she said" and as such wont hold up in court. This is similar to most sciences that while either, neither or both may be true without more conclusive evidence it is simply not possible to tell and not scientific.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-08-2009 at 12:59 PM..
It may not violate science; however, it is not confirmed by it either, but as someone who is getting ready to study law I can tell you that just because something fulfills a necessary condition does not mean that it is correct.
And THAT is where the individual necessity to experience "seeing the tornado" for oneself comes in.
Quote:
These types of disputes often occur in religion, with different religions saying different things. In law this is what is casually known as a case of "he said...she said" and as such wont hold up in court. This is similar to most sciences that while either, neither or both may be true without more conclusive evidence it is simply not possible to tell and not scientific.
My attorney daughter agrees with you and so do I . . . which is why I am ONLY witnessing . . . not requesting or demanding anything except an acknowledgment that it is scientifically viable for others . . . but true for ME.
My attorney daughter agrees with you and so do I . . . which is why I am ONLY witnessing . . . not requesting or demanding anything except an acknowledgment that it is scientifically viable for others . . . but true for ME.
I believe now we more or less understand each others perspective and are in harmony. Thank you for the discussion.
That is the simplified formula (but that is nitpicking). What we call energy is the foundation vibrational state and everything is some vibrational "event" in time whose "permanence" is a spherical standing waveform of it . . . like accumulating "traffic jams" of energy . . . into packets of "particle" events, atom events, molecule events, substance events, etc.. The greater the accumulation the more "mass" they have and the more "permanent" and "solid" they appear to us.
More specifically . . . energy in the form of consciousness . . . as ours are. The requirement is for our consciousness to attain some level of resonance with God consciousness . . . (or be recycled or reprocessed somehow????.)
Learning is not transferred in epigenetic activations. This has been an active issue in biology for the last couple of hundered years. It was first proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1819), and became the basis of Communist Russian discrimination against many ethnic groups. Lamarck used the idea of "soft inheritance" wherein an organism passes off charicteristics it acquires through its lifetime to its offspring. This has shown to be completly false. There are only one type of "acquired" characteristics that can be inherited: reproductive cell changes due to aging, disease, or toxins.
This is NOT the same thing as evolution of the brain. However, the genetic transcription errors in reproduction could contribute to brain evolution.
There has been A LOT of testing on this issue--and it has been absolutely proven scientifically that Lamarckism is incorrect.
I am not talking about Lamarckism . . . just environmentally induced changes in gene activation and de-activation (epigenetic) that have been shown to be heritable. Check some more recent sources like the Nature series of journals.
More specifically . . . energy in the form of consciousness . . . as ours are. The requirement is for our consciousness to attain some level of resonance with God consciousness . . . (or be recycled or reprocessed somehow????.)
So, consciousness=god?
or perhaps more eloquently:
conscience = god?
or perhaps even better:
consilence = god?
or wait...are you talking about Jewish Reconstructionism: We-consiousness = god consiousness?
or Hegelian phenonmaology wherein knowledge of self becomes society's knowledge of their collective self etc.
????
Last edited by dcashley; 04-08-2009 at 04:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for the discussion.
