Is there a GOD? Or a continuous recycle process of life? Or does everything cease to exist in death? (believers, explanation)
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.
what type of god do you believe in aura? can you some it up quickly for me?
A God with a universal creation that can exist and work with us in our body with us existing in the body of the universe and walk through the fiery stones of the universe peacefully with our head, our God. And put our selfish greed into the waste basket and work together as one for the benefit of all instead of this pyramid of society with the 1% at the top and everyone else deceived and regulated to serve their own selfish desires of get rick quick by any means possible with that me first, me first, mine, mine, mine attitude.
Sorry Arac, that's about the best I could do at the moment.
And the open or closed system talk...what is that robotics?
The system is open, enter please.
The system has closed, please bang head against the door.
Like some doctor talking and talking trying to conceal much more than they reveal so they invent their own specific language to talk to each other while you gaze in wonderment at all the words they know and you don't, making you feel you're not up to their level. How can you contradict this professional when you can't understand what they are really saying. Oh, you don't know? Shame, shame.
A God with a universal creation that can exist and work with us in our body with us existing in the body of the universe and walk through the fiery stones of the universe peacefully with our head, our God. And put our selfish greed into the waste basket and work together as one for the benefit of all instead of this pyramid of society with the 1% at the top and everyone else deceived and regulated to serve their own selfish desires of get rick quick by any means possible with that me first, me first, mine, mine, mine attitude.
Sorry Arac, that's about the best I could do at the moment.
And the open or closed system talk...what is that robotics?
The system is open, enter please.
The system has closed, please bang head against the door.
Like some doctor talking and talking trying to conceal much more than they reveal so they invent their own specific language to talk to each other while you gaze in wonderment at all the words they know and you don't, making you feel you're not up to their level. How can you contradict this professional when you can't understand what they are really saying. Oh, you don't know? Shame, shame.
The open or closed system talk was in reference to the universe. Some posters are always referencing their knoqwledge of how the universe works. Is asked for an hypothesis on whether or notthe universe is thought to be open or closed. Open is open to new life forms/chemicals/pamspermia. Closed is like a shell.
Arach said there's no way for anyone to know but that doesn't preclude someone from explaining how the universe works.
The open or closed system talk was in reference to the universe. Some posters are always referencing their knoqwledge of how the universe works. Is asked for an hypothesis on whether or notthe universe is thought to be open or closed. Open is open to new life forms/chemicals/pamspermia. Closed is like a shell.
Arach said there's no way for anyone to know but that doesn't preclude someone from explaining how the universe works.
Thats not really what is going on grab.
I said use what we know to predict what we may not know. nobody knows if the system is open or closed. So we are forced to address the possibilities using ope, closed, neither.
I said, basing claims in unknowns is not a sound method for forming a belief. I said, using what we do know, is the best we can do in forming a belief. If we use what we know the beliefs tend to self correct themselves as we learn more and where we were wrong.
In this case; when we do that we tend to focus on conclusions that may, or may not, be independent on open, closed, or neither. whatever neither might mean, QM stuff I guess. what I think you are doing is focusing on what is not known and then when people say " we don't know", you will insert a far less valid claim. whatever that is. You are also minimizing what we do know by claiming, "they don't even know if the system is open or not." so then insert some less valid claim.
both sides do it grab, so yo are not alone.
now back to open and closed. We don't know if the universe is open or closed. Any conclusion based on stateing, with any certainty, the universe is either open or closed, is a conclusion based on an unknown.
nowm going to a radius 40 AU's I said we really can address your claims and compare them to mine by claiming the system is open or closed. Due to the amount of material and energy in the solar system as compared to that coming in, we can make the assumption that it is closed, for at least a small period of time anyway. I said, we can also assume that the system is open.
then I asked you support your claim (there is a god? I think, I don't remember) basing the claim on open, closed, and neither and see how the claim holds up.
That is what I actually said grab.
to sum it up ... again. I said, base you claim on open, closed, or neither and see if your claim holds up through those conditional changes.
we will compare your claim to mine. My claim accounts for both open and closed system. as claim that offers an explanation, a mechanism, makes predictions, and is repeatable is more valid than those that don't. period.
I said use what we know to predict what we may not know. nobody knows if the system is open or closed. So we are forced to address the possibilities using ope, closed, neither.
I said, basing claims in unknowns is not a sound method for forming a belief. I said, using what we do know, is the best we can do in forming a belief. If we use what we know the beliefs tend to self correct themselves as we learn more and where we were wrong.
In this case; when we do that we tend to focus on conclusions that may, or may not, be independent on open, closed, or neither. whatever neither might mean, QM stuff I guess. what I think you are doing is focusing on what is not known and then when people say " we don't know", you will insert a far less valid claim. whatever that is. You are also minimizing what we do know by claiming, "they don't even know if the system is open or not." so then insert some less valid claim.
both sides do it grab, so yo are not alone.
now back to open and closed. We don't know if the universe is open or closed. Any conclusion based on stateing, with any certainty, the universe is either open or closed, is a conclusion based on an unknown.
nowm going to a radius 40 AU's I said we really can address your claims and compare them to mine by claiming the system is open or closed. Due to the amount of material and energy in the solar system as compared to that coming in, we can make the assumption that it is closed, for at least a small period of time anyway. I said, we can also assume that the system is open.
then I asked you support your claim (there is a god? I think, I don't remember) basing the claim on open, closed, and neither and see how the claim holds up.
That is what I actually said grab.
to sum it up ... again. I said, base you claim on open, closed, or neither and see if your claim holds up through those conditional changes.
we will compare your claim to mine. My claim accounts for both open and closed system. as claim that offers an explanation, a mechanism, makes predictions, and is repeatable is more valid than those that don't. period.
How does it relate to your"dude died and flew away" frequent reference? after you state this you often say something about how the universe works.
A God with a universal creation that can exist and work with us in our body with us existing in the body of the universe and walk through the fiery stones of the universe peacefully with our head, our God. And put our selfish greed into the waste basket and work together as one for the benefit of all instead of this pyramid of society with the 1% at the top and everyone else deceived and regulated to serve their own selfish desires of get rick quick by any means possible with that me first, me first, mine, mine, mine attitude.
Sorry Arac, that's about the best I could do at the moment.
And the open or closed system talk...what is that robotics?
The system is open, enter please.
The system has closed, please bang head against the door.
Like some doctor talking and talking trying to conceal much more than they reveal so they invent their own specific language to talk to each other while you gaze in wonderment at all the words they know and you don't, making you feel you're not up to their level. How can you contradict this professional when you can't understand what they are really saying. Oh, you don't know? Shame, shame.
the open and closed system is a diversion. This hole mess between god and no god is a diversion from helping people be the best they can. we have dishonest people pushing sects of atheism and sects of theism as the the most valid claims for personal agendas instead of just looking at what is going on around us.. when the answer looks like its in between the two.
open and close just means energy and material can flow in and out of the defined system. Its that simple.
now, using open and closed as the base for a belief is a house built on sand. Its an unknown. So how do we handle unknown? well, sometimes its more difficult than others, but in this case, open and closed, its actually easy.
leave out "open and close'
make it closed
make it open.
And see how you claim holds up. At a radius of 40AU's we can actually set the system at closed, its actually a good enough approximation for discussing what we see on earth. Its more correct to call it open, so that can also be used to describe what we see around us.
was there anything about the claim itself? in that explanation? no, I teach how to form a belief, when we teach the process of forming a belief they self correct with us people in the middle.
some sects of atheism shun me aurs because I apply the same rigor I use on theist tor my atheism. oscar's razor (Occam's razor). what is the simplest explanation for the system we are in? what "law", a small concise explanation of the system we are in, fits best? I use that for atheism and theism.
well there are a few. for me, covering up less valid claims due to a fear of religion is dishonest, deceitful, and flat mean spirited. I have no idea what religion did to these types of atheist but they are a danger to us all.
The fallacy of composition is only a fallacy if you think there are SEPARATE things. IF we use the perspective of a ONENESS to everything, then there are no separate systems and any attributes of any elements in the system are attributes of the ONE system as a whole.
thats right mystic,
I used "the digestive system" in humans as an example. When you list the traits of a digestive system it would be incorrect to say "humans are that". But, the digestive system is an integral part of being human so it is correct to say "human have a digestive system".
well, we are not the most complex "volume" in space. So what traits may emerge when we look at life on this planet as a sub system of larger, more complex, system, like digestive compared to human.
oscum razor mystic, ... "life" or "homeostasis". its that simple.
How does it relate to your"dude died and flew away" frequent reference? after you state this you often say something about how the universe works.
cool progress.
now lets look at dude dying waking up and flying away for our sins.
open and close is pointless in that discussion because its unknown. But lets analyze the dude died, woke up, and flew away for ours sins in both systems if you like.
then we compare your claim to my claim. And i will make a claim. "I make no claim", is a cop out made by people that don't know what they don't know and are, quite frankly, a lot of them are school yard bullies, picking on girls.
I will make a claim that has to be supported, and stack it up against yours.
now lets look at dude dying waking up and flying away for our sins.
open and close is pointless in that discussion because its unknown. But lets analyze the dude died, woke up, and flew away for ours sins in both systems if you like.
then we compare your claim to my claim. And i will make a claim. "I make no claim", is a cop out made by people that don't know what they don't know and are, quite frankly, a lot of them are school yard bullies, picking on girls.
I will make a claim that has to be supported, and stack it up against yours.
What is my claim? I have not explored all of universe from the third rock/fish bowl.
The fallacy of composition is only a fallacy if you think there are SEPARATE things. IF we use the perspective of a ONENESS to everything, then there are no separate systems and any attributes of any elements in the system are attributes of the ONE system as a whole.
Honestly, Mystic, this doesn't really compute to me. But, instead of me just writing this off as woo, maybe you can help me work through what you mean.
I'm a concrete thinker, examples help me, so lets try this one:
1) Automobiles have some number, usually 4, of tires as a component.
2) Tires are made primarily of rubber.
3) Therefore, Automobiles are made primarily of rubber.
So here is an example of the fallacy of composition. We both know that the conclusion is not true, at least if you examine the problem conventionally. That is, we take the view that an automobile is distinct entity, a thing in its own right, composed of a number of component entities. These component entities have distinct properties and attributes, and as we have shown here, in a rough proof-by-contradiction, the argument that the whole inherits and shares all of the attributes of the component entities is false.
So, the next step, what perspective of oneness, what frame of mind, what approach, aside from changing the problem, do you use to make the above example true? Because I simply can't get from rubber tires to a rubber automobile logically, but I am willing to be shown how...
As the hourglass flows...Turn the Radio Up and Let it Rock Steady...
Welcome to my house!
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.
