Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you say the universe is the Ultimate Reality, you are a pantheist. You still believe God exists.But this is a conception of God, and. a conception of God is an understanding, it isn't God.
Your use of capital G is confusing. A pantheist may have the universe as his god, but that does not mean he believes capital-G God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I fully addressed all that in my post. The issue is whether identifying the UR with God has any basis.
Can you demostrate that the UR is the God of Christianity, or are you doing no more than asserting it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The authors of the Bible are not still around to tell us, and simply reading their words is not enough to eliminate all gray areas and wiggle room.
I doubt they'd all agree if they were around. I think the nt would be even less consistent if deciding what was canon was not in the hands of Paulines. i think only James represents a non-Pauline perspective.
Ja 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
I think that is shows a very practical, this-worldly attitude that is more Judaic than the more abstract and next-world orienation of the Hellenised Paul. James emphasises works for their on sake - Paul emphasises faith as the key to personal salvalation.
The rabid anti-semite Martin Luther hated the book of James and called it an epistle of straw, but (as is plausible) james was the brother of jesus it might be closer to what Jesus actually taught.
btw ML was not a nice person. He wrote of the Jews
"Jews are a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. They are full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."
That was 400 years before Hitler!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Observable reality is by definition contingent on observation, and therefore cannot be The Ultimate Reality, which is not contingent.
I think people should try harder to make themelves clearer!
What you are trying to say is that 'plain old' reality does not have to exist - there is nothing about ordinary things (such as ashtrays and socks) that forces them to exist. There could be nothing at all.
But clearly there is a 'plain old' reality, ergo there must be something that brings 'reality' into existence. To avoid infinte regress that something must be 'necessarily existing', and in Orthodoxy that something is called 'the ultimate reality'.
Basically, its a rehash of the kalam.
Whtever you make of the kalam and its variants, its most fatal defect comes when you try to equate the UR with God. Nothing in the kalam establishes the UR has the properties of God. The kalam does not prove the UR hears or answers prayers nor that it cares whehter people are good or bad. It does not show there is a heaven and hell. It does not show that the UR so loved the world he gave his only begotten son.
It is the belief of many theists that what the kalam claims to proves to exist is their God, but the features of an entity that make it a god are not proven to apply to the UR.
The validity of the kalam argument is debatable, but it is also moot because even if it is valid it doesn't prove anything about the god of any religion, let alone of a particualar religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I like the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought, with the emphasis on anti-authoritarianism and believing what feels right to you rather than what a mega-church says is right. And I like the practice of baptizing when you choose to be saved rather than at birth, before you can make choices.
I don't think you are right about 'the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought'. Catholicism recognises two sources of religious authority - the Bible and the Church . Protestantism tends to 'scriptura sola' so the protestant church has no power to add or take away from what is in the text.
What protestantism does not do is give individuals the right or power to interpret scripture as they see fit. Under protestantism there is a correct interpretation and determining the correct interpetation remains firmly in the hands of the Church, not the individual believer. The only difference is that the Cathlolic church does not have justify everthing with chapter and verse as it claims to have independent authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You know The Ultimate Reality exists. You won't call it God because you are a MURDERER.
I'm fairly sure I'm not.
As I have not been tutored in the special language of the orthodox church, it is not clear to me what the difference between 'reality' and 'ultimate reality' is. I am happy to agree that I know reality exists! But I can't say I know 'the ultimare reality' exists without knowing what the term refers to.
You say I know TUR exists, but I would say what I know exists is just 'plain old' reality. But I can't equate plain old reality with God. Plain old reality is just stuff - ashtrays, my socks, gettin old and dieing.... but God (I am told) is an entity that (amongst much else) judges my actions and will reward or punish me accordingly when I am dead. I can assure you that I DO NOT know that such an entity exists even if you do call it TUR.
In summary then I concede that reality - ashtrays and socks etc- undeniably exist. But that existence of such things as socks establishes the existence of God (particularly proving the Chrustian God) well, I don't think it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The veracity of evolution is unimportant as a matter of salvation.
I think creationists are worried that if people don't believe Gen 1 they will end up not believing in any of the bible. Charles Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey, alongside Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking. The Church of England its faults,but at least it has no problem with science or scientists.
Darwinists are probably more welcome in heaven than most creationists!
I would also like to point out that the existence of God is the surest scientific fact there is.
You do indeed like to 'point that out' - you've been doing it for months. I don't think you've convinced anybody yet...
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
@Dr.Franklin
This was meant to be a response to PW, who has unaccountably 'blocked' me hence I have @'ed you lot instead.
The reason I think that Jesus was a real person is that I think it is slightly more likely that a legend would develop around a nugget of truth than to be made up from nothing at all. The Jesus I think [probably] existed was as human as you or I, but unlike you or I he became the focus of a religious cult.
If by 'Jesus' is meant the actual son of god who could perform miracles and returned from the dead then I'd say that jesus never existed. But I think the chances are quite good that a man named Jesus was a prominent preacher and he originated at least some of the sayings ascribed to him. It's more than possible he was executed and was deified by his followers subsequently.
I certainly don't claim to know it was so - but on balance I'd bet on that rather than jesus being no more than a fictional character invented out of thin air by the gospel writers, although that is just about possible. I doubt we wil ever know for sure.
Re Moses, he was supposed to have lived long before the OT was put together. The early books of the bible show clear signs of being pure myth and legend with no basis in real history. I doubt there was ever a real person whose biography would qualify him to be 'the real Moses'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
In the context of evolution 'random' means that mutations occur with no regard to the consequences. It doesn't mean all mutations are equally likely - they certainly aren't mathematically random! It means that whether a mutation happens or not is a 'chance event' unrelated to the benefit or damage it will cause.
I'm not bothered if 'that isn't what random means'! It is what what 'random' means in this context. It is intended to imply that intelliegence and teleology play no role in determining the what and when of mutations - they happen 'randomly'.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't doubt you do.coo,I think it was destroyed by God
Created:
-->
@disgusted
@Dr.Franklin
It appears that 'Associates for Biblical Research' is a one-man band - essentially it's a blog belonging to this guy:
It's possible he is right and mainstream scholars are wrong, but BGW's opinions cannot be said to be definitive!
I think that the Hebrew knew of ruined and abandoned cities dotted across the region and made up stories to account for them. for example,
In 1930–36, John Garstang conducted excavations there and discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls which he dated to about 1400 BCE. Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated the site over 1952–1958 and demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptiancampaign of that period, and that Jericho had been deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century BCE, the supposed time of Joshua's battle.[
I think it very likely Sodom and Gomorrah were ancient abandoned sites that the Hebrew rationalised as being destroyed by an act of their god, and that legend was incorporated into the pentateuch saga.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree. Certainly what we perceive is 'a mental construct', and if I perceive a rock I can't tell if it is a 'real rock' or a hallucination. However the fact that I do not perceive the external world directly does not mean that there is no eternal world - what it means is I can't infer the presence of an eternal world purely on the basis of my perception.The "external world'" that we all perceive is a mental construct. People share mental constructs, of rocks for instance, because we're processing the same information. But what really exists is the information that generates the appearance of the rock, not the rock itself.
But if I perceive a rock then anyone I am with will generally also preceive a rock. That implies that what causes my perception of the rock and my companioins perception is something external to both of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you're right. I definitely didn't say what I what I wanted to say.
It's more that with CF I can't see what 'true' and 'false' mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
True, but Constantine was 4th century. I think the vast majority of Jews rejected Christianity from the get-go. What is uncertain (I know you hate expressing uncertainty!) is how different Paul's 'gentile friendly' version of Christianity was from Jesus' actual teaching.
Jewish followers of Jesus such as the ebionites seem to have had a low opinion of Paul, but most of what we now about them is gleaned from the writings of their Pauline enemies. The most notable thng about judaism is how little interest there is in non-Jewish matters. Paul was shunted off to the world outside Israel where he had a free hand. Historic accident caused it to be Paul's version of Christianity that prospered and the (presumaly more Judaic) original form that withered.
Forgive the brevity of this post... it's a topic that one can only write of ultra-simplisticly in a forum post. It requires book length to do it justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT was written before the 1st-century?
I think there is no doubt the OT was written well before the 1st century.
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence in its wording for another destruction of Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian conquest?
If you are refering to Daniel 9, then i'dsay it is far too obscure and ambiguous to count as strong evidence of anything!
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence of coming judgment on these Old Covenant people if they did not repent?Would you say the OT gives strong evidence that if Israel was disobedient to God He would bring curses upon them?Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT promised a Messiah to come?
It is a reccurrent theme of the OT that the Hebrews would be doing fine then stray from yhwh. yhwh would then punsh them andthey would suffer until a national hero ('messiah') came along to restore things. The basis of OT religion is that yhwh would look after his tribe as long as they worshipped him properly and exclusuvely. If they did not, he punished them.
Is there strong evidence these things happened?Do these prophetic messages appear genuine?
In the real world, tribes naturally wax and wane and go through period good and bad periods. It is a safe bet that if things go badly one can blame people for for being lax in their religion.
But at root, the problem with prophesy is that it it depends on elements that are supernatural or magical. Bluntly, it's a question of beieving in magic or belieivng that people aren't always honest!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not a 1st century jew so I don' know the precise reason Christianity was not popular within Israel - but clearly it wasn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Of course God had changed as far as the Jews were concerned! God had been 'one' for thousands of years, then the Christians made Him 2, or 3. In all sorts of ways Christianity diverged from traditional Judaism.
I agree that prophesy would be strong evidence for God. What we disagree on is whether what is claimed to be prophesy is genuine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus came to His own, but His own did not receive Him, thus the covenant is with the New Israel, spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. Remember Jesus said that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and that time had now come. These Old Covenant people rejected the chief cornerstone. Jesus was a stumbling stone to them. They stumbled over Him with their lack of faith in God's word.
Do you talk like that IRL?
It is obviously true that Christianity succeeded with gentiles more than it did with the Jews. Perhaps that is not surprising, as while Jesus' teachings were an attractive novelty to many non-Jews, the Jews were being required to accept the god they had worshipped for thousands of years had changed.
I do not believe the god of the Christians destroyed the jewish nation and scattered them across the world.to punish the jews' faithfulness to the ways yhwh had demanded of them for countless generations. I don't believe that because gods don't exist. I think the Jews rebelled against Rome and lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
the everlasting covenant God promised for both Jews and Gentiles (Jerimiah 31:30-32)
Nothing about gentiles in there that I can see!
30Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
32For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
maybe,but the writer of Hebrews (I am told it wasn't Paul, so I have to say 'writer of Hebrews'!) doesn't draw attention to any such problem!
But of course he doesn't - he is trying to 'sell' Christianity to the Jews! He seems to have had limited success with the Hebrews themselves, but at least Stephen seems to accept Jesus as the legitimate king and high priest of the Jews!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Orthodox Christian theology is expressed in apodictic truths.What that means is that these are not philosophical conclusions, but that which is self evident.
Not quite.
according to merriam-webster,
apodictic = expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty.
The difference between self-evident and apodictic is that things proven by sound argument are also apodictic. So Pythagoras' theorem is apodictic, even though it is not self-evident because it is rigorously proven.
The opposite is 'assertoric'' which means neither self-evident nor proven. For example, Fermat's last theorem was assertoric for 358 years but became apodictic in 1994.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
From what I can currently tell, they appear to be indistinguishable.
I would say 'matter first' suggests it should be possible to build an artificially conscious device out of ordinary matter. 'Consciousness first' is a bit more ambiguous about that. Or perhaps it isn't! I don't know what can't be proven with 'consciousness first'.
I think one 'atraction' of idealism is that it seems to satisfy occam's razor - ie if all you need is the mental, there is no need for the phyical and the mental. but i'm not sure how idealists deal with simple thingslike two people seeing the same thing. If you and I look at a tree, we both see a tree. Why do we agree if there is no external world that we share? Unless of course you are part of my imaginary world. Basically, if you are prepared to go to silly lengths idealism can be made irrefutable. Dr johnson was wrong trying to refute idealism by kicking a stone. But if he'd accidentally stubbed his toe on an unseen stone then that might have done it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I really hope I've been posting long enough for people to know that I think gods are purely imaginary. If it seemed was I talking of how the gods are, I am really talking about how they are imagined to be.
The only adjective I think really applies to gods is 'non-existent', but that seemed a boring and obvious thing to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Who disagrees?
An ancient Hebrew might disagree, although he would be careful to do so in a way that did risk offending yhwh!
The relatiuonship between ANE tribes and their gods was that those 'positive adjectives' applied as long as the god was pleased, but if they were displeased those gods turned extremely negative!
What yhwh demanded most was obedience and what made him angry was worshipping any of the other gods. Then the adjectives 'jealous', 'vengeful', 'wrathful' would apply!
Other religionsare explicily dualistic,, with one god having 'postive' attributes and the other god the negative ones. Such dulaism seems natural to human minds, and it appears in folk-Christianity as the enmity between God and Satan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Gary Habermas has identified (I think if my memory serves me and not reading the chapter again) nineteen external non-Christian references to Jesus as a historical person.
It could well be 19 - or even more - but the point is not whther there was a 'Historical Jesus' at all but whether the historical Jesus was a mere mortal.
If you review the Habermas material, there is nothing to suggest anything miraculous - and as you say,
The miracles are what separates Jesus from mere mortals.
As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods. I do not deny the existence of religions, nor the existence of religious belief nor the existence of charismatic characters who inspire religions.
I can believe Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount - why not? It does not require a god to address a crowd. But I don't believe Jesus revivified Lazarus. The evidence for both is the same - they are described in the bible. So its not really about evidence at all - despite what people say on forums!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@nagisa3
Whether god exists or not does not depend on the outcome of this debate!
I think chatting about the nature of intuition is much more interesting - and difficult. It means having to think about what we don't think about....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
One cannot be a "priest-king" in Judaism.
Yet we read in Gen 14:18 "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine: and he was [is] the priest of the most high",
so melchizedek was both king and priest! There is nothing else about M. in the OT, but that brief mention gave the writer of Hebrews his material.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@nagisa3
I do not know the origin of hunches. I believe they occur because brains evolved to work with imperfect and incomplete information. It has nothing to with faith, because I know my hunches are hunches are hunches and as such could be wrong. If I had faith that matter preceded consciousness I would know it was so despite inadequate or even contradictory data.
So I don't have faith that matter came first - it's just a hunch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke clearly address the issue of Jesus' connection to the House of David, and in Hebrews jesus is said to be a priest of the 'order of Melchizedek', ie he belonged to a non-levite line of priests.
The writers of the NT were clearly aware of theological criticisms being levelled at Christianity (mainly by mainstream Jews) and came up with 'creative solutions'.
There isagreat deal for theolgians to argue over, but not much for historians because there are so few corroborated facts. I think it's probable tht Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher, but I don't deny it's possible he is no realler than, say Robin Hood.
I'm surprised that Stephen manages to have firm views without being a believer in the traditional sense. After decades of (admitedly sporadic)reading, there is still nothing I am sure of regarding the life and death of Jesus - other than the magic/miracle god stuff is nonsense, but that's because I don't believe in gods or the supernatual in any form, not because of historical evidence because there is next to none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes they have and it all boils down to the fact - in short and simplified - that he was a legitimate heir to the High Priesthood this was heresy in the eyes of the serving Roman appointed high priesthood, not to mention that this claim threatened their lucrative positions as "false priests", which they were more concerned about.. And his pedigree put him up as the legitimate king of the Jews, but this only niggled the Romans and could have brought charges of lese majesty as they had installed their own puppet king, Herod , whom was an Arab. The truth here though is that the Romans didn't actually care who was "king of the Jews" as long as he buckled down and kept his people in order. They all between them conspired to rid themselves of the legitimate Priest King Jesus.
I haven't seen anything that sets out the case for jesus being a legitmate priest-king, but there is plenty in the bible to sugest Jesus was anti-Priest and of course the romans would not hesitate to eliminate a troublesome rabble rouser.
I'd be very interested in studying material that relates to Jesus being 'legitimate' (by bloodline?) - my assumption is that he was personally charismatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Good people break bad rules, but bad people break good rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think what you call 'awareness of God's existence' is really 'belief in God's existence'.It is a mistake to say that God is based off a man who walked the Earth after people were already aware of God's existence.
I do not say 'God is based off a man' - I say there is no God. I say one particular set of religious beliefs trace back to the human Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@nagisa3
I'd say this debate has very little to do with facts and proofs. It's about hunches and preferences.
My hunch is that the universe started with matter and consciousness arose to help living things navigate reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
These days I'm more careful to put 'I believe' in my posts. I can guarantee
What I believe is that the divine Jesus is a fictional character based on a real human being.
is 100% true.
I'm sure what you wrote is what you believe, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
As what 'Historic Christ' means is open to interpretation, what I believe is that the divine Jesus is a fictional character based on a real human being.
Which American president chopped down a cherry tree and couldn't tell a lie? Obviously, George Washington. But the story was made up an there is in reality no American president who chopped down a cherry tree and couldn't tell a lie. It's a semantic mess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@nagisa3
Whether 1) a real lion is the same thing as a dream lion and 2) whether it it is possible or an individual to know if a given preception is 'real' or 'hallucination' are very different questions. it's the difference betweeen 'epistemology' and 'ontology'.
My belief is we live in a world where there are both real lions and 'lions in the mind'. Lions in the mind are sometimes dreams, but more usefully they often correspond to real lions. Lions in mind are evolutions trick to protect us from real lions.
An alternative belief system is that there are no 'real lions', there are only 'lions in the mind'. Such a view can't be refuted because the proposer can always assert that the refutation is part of the illusion.... so I no longer argue over it. A few solipsists/idealists claim to believe in it, but it doesn't seem to affects the way they live their day-to-day lives!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@nagisa3
Yes, it is a convention that it is impossible to breathe underwater. Thats why if youre doing it, youre probably in what we call a dream. And what is the difference between a real and dreamt lion?
I think everyone who has ever dabbled in 'philosophy' goes through that phase!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I'd say that everything up to Judges has almost zero historicity.Why?
I think there is trend running across the histotrical books of the OT such that we start with genesis full of legends, miracles and magic which often runs counter to common-sense and archeologial evidence but end with Nehemiah and Ezra which have no magic or miracles at all and are generally consistent with other sources.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I'd say that everything upto Judges has almost zero histroricity. Kings has some connection with real events and people, and the latest books of the OT (ezra/nehemiah) are almost straight history. There is a definite trend there.The Moses story is absolute fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I do not take a position. I merely observe.
Then I suggest you write in a way that doesn't make you come over as a creationist stooge. Personally, I believe that if you quack like a duck and walk like a duck your still a duck after denying it. It just makes you a dishonest duck.
Where's your proof. Your video didn't state that they can't have goals. It didn't even imply it (if anything, it implied the contrary.) Please elaborate on the reason they cannot have goals.
How much elastic is allowed in saying what a 'goal' is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Nice bit of sophistry. Evolution doesn't simply state "change over time." It's an ideology attempting to explain the method and nature of this presumable change--particularly biologically.
I'd say pedantry rather than sophistry. I think an ideology based on evolution would be called 'evolutionism'.
I think it would be nice to know what you think. It's clear what we evolutionists believe, but what precisely do you believe? Are you YEC, OEC, ID? for all I know you could be a Lamarckian!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And I responded by characterizing it as a gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy can also be described as the logical fallacy in which random process become less random, and more predictable, the more often they're repeated. (That's how I incorporated the gambler's fallacy in my statement.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
@Athias
Genesis 9:12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
I was taught that rainbows were due to refraction by raindrops. I wonder if that piece of anti-religious science should be taught in schools!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
It's hard to take you [athias]seriously when you make statements like this that casually dismiss all of science.
I don't take such people seriously! Following on from my earlier post, what has happened since Darwin's time is the discovery that genes and mutation are at the heart of the mechanism of variation and inheritance. That is variation and inheritance explain adaptation and genetics explains variation and inheritance.
Looked at that way neo-Darwininian evolution is not a theory - it's a logical necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
If we're quibbling definitions, 'evolution' means 'change over time'. Unless you believe that there has been no change in the form of any living thing since the beginning of the world you 'believe in evolution'. My guess is athias believes in evolution!
Darwinian evolution is the consequence of the self-evident facts that variation between indiviuals a) affects their relative fitness and b) is at least partly heritable. Given those facts, adaptive evolution must occur - it's simple logic. It was that incredibly obvious (in hindsight) principle Darwin and Wallace gave us.
I think you have to be very brave to deny the validity of a and b - I wonder if Athias is brave enough...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am fairly convinced that I am fairly convinced that sexual immorality is the main reason youngsters leaving the church.
Really? It's not even mentioned in report. So what convinces you, given the only hard evidence is that sexual immorality is not the main reason youngsters leaving the church?
That's one difference between religious types and science types... the religious put their personal opinion ahead of facts but for the scientific the facts trump mere opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I assume you don't think I am stupid, but you think I need to be told some people don't know what gallium is and that some thermometers aren't accurate!
I'm not trying to make a huge point. The word 'objective' has been used a certain way since the year dot, but you seem to insist on a non-standard meaning. As far as I know, 'quanta' is the plural of 'quantum' and so 'quanta' means 'small amounts'! I'll cut you slack that and let 'quanta and qualia' be related to 'quantitative' and 'qualitative', but there has to be a limit to idiosyncrasy!
We aren't even arguing about an important topic - certainly not 'atheism v theism'. Whatever it is we are disputing (if anything), I'm bored with it - its not a big enough thing to worry over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We are clearly not communicating!
i'll bail for now - perhaps some other thread will turn out more productively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
To see where you want to go with this, I will use
'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'
for all 3.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The Iranian population is 81 million. The number of people who run things in iran is nearer 81 people than 81 million... and those 81 people are the ones with a nuclear bunker, not the 81M ordinary iranians. If the destruction of 13 times as many innocent lives as the holocaust is a solution to a problem, it must be a bigger problem than this appears to be.i'm not saying that america should invade iran. just bomb them.
Created: