Xest wrote:Huh? This sounds completely irrelevant to what you quoted, in typical Gandelf fashion you're making no sense whatsoever.
Thank you for yet again, for about the 4th time in this thread proving my comment right - that those who beleive in religion will show nothing but ignorance when presented with facts that go against their beleifs. You haven't proven a thing, you've only ignored the facts I've presented that act as hard evidence against your beleifs, but as I say I can't complain, you're acheiving nothing but proving my point precisely. I've yet to see you provide any evidence whatsoever that god exists, that the miracles in the bible ever really happened however. Perhaps you should go take a digital camera and film yourself being eaten by a whale and surviving for days because your faith is so strong god will obviously let you live right and it doesn't matter if the digital camera gets wet because god wont let a silly thing like physics get in the way of faith will he? Oh wait no sorry I forgot miracles are only allowed to happen thousands of years ago whilst there's no one else whatsoever around to verify the story. Again, to clarify where your understanding is going wrong Gandelf it's that you're making a horribly large and flawed assumption, that just because a few principles of physics are in debate such as the principle of locality that other physics principles are incorrect. This is outright false, many physics theorems are completely undisputably proven to be true as are many scientific ideas in general. Like Cryn, you're merely generalising claiming that because some physics theory has been changed in the past that all must be wrong, this couldn't be further from the truth. Also when looking at ideas such as the principle of locality you'll find that it still is a work in progress, that is that although it's wrong it's a building block in our understanding of space, time and cosmology. This is a very big contrast to say, Newtons laws which are very complete, there are bounds to the ideas they support (i.e. they don't work when dealing with the speed of light). To claim the principle of locality is an example of physical sciences being flawed is in fact equivalent to saying "Any physics principle or theory has to be correct first time and isn't allowed any further iterations". As time goes on principles and theories begin to be set in stone as corrections are made to different cases to the point where many older ideas are perfectly accurate and don't need any amendments whatsoever and it's these alone that can prove large portions of religious history and ideas as being impossible.
Oh so it's okay if one day physics proves the supernatural does exist but current rules of physics, despite many of them being proven as complete and perfected aren't good enough proof that many miracles are impossible as is the existence of god? That's damn convenient Gandelf wouldn't you say?
No doubt you'll ignore the facts and come back with nothing more than "You're wrong cos I say so" yet again, but then I guess we can't really expect anything more than horribly weak arguments from someone who's built his life around beleiving that thousands of years old story books are factual. I wont bother trying to explain it to you anymore Gandelf as you're repeatedly proving yourself simply too dumb to understand and too brainwashed to even want to try and understand.
In some ways religion is a poor mans science, that is, it's an explanation for things we don't understand without the need to provide any facts or evidence whatsoever. That's great if you're willing to accept such a simple explanation for the universe and our existence, but if you'd rather know the truth it's much better to spend the time studying the sciences and finding out for yourself what the deal really is.
For what we are about to receive, may God make us truly grateful...
You're good at writing essays... I can tell! Trouble is, they tend to follow the same pattern, i.e. you always twist what someone has said, or turn it on it's head to make it sound as if what the other person said is in total contradiction to what they've said before. It sounds to me as if you're scared of acknowledging that your way of thinking might well be flawed. You're afraid of "letting go". You stick rigidly to ideas that everyone else knows are incomplete... like the fact that the "conventional" laws of Physics break down at higher levels. For example, conventional Physics says that when two objects collide from opposite directions (e.g. from opposite points of the compass), their combined impact speed is calculated by adding the two velocities, e.g. two objects travelling at 10 mph each, will impact with the force equivalent of 20 mph. BUT, this law breaks down with light. Two beams of light colliding with each other will not have a combined force of twice the speed of light, because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. So, the conventional laws of Physics do not apply... they break down!
If this is true in one instance, then it reasonable to assume that conventional laws of Physics may break down in other unitherto undiscovered laws of the universe. As has been said already, the laws of Physics only go so far in describing how and why things happen, but they are still incomplete. By accusing me of ignoring the facts, you are condemning yourself by the same principle, because you are ignoring the facts that the laws of Physics/the universe are uncomplete. If you make a claim that everything we know about the universe has been discovered and defined, then you are essentially making a claim that no other scientist has yet claimed. You are placing yourself above Newton, Einstein and Hawking... that's a pretty big claim. Even if such scientists may believe they are right, they would never dare say so. So at least you've got guts... I'll grant you that!
So I say, once again, the supernatural realm cannot be disproved.
In a way I feel sorry for you, because it will only take one piece of irrefutable evidence to support the existence of the supernatural to shut you up for good. However, this can never happen to those who already believe, because they will always have the hope that that proof will one day be found.
You must (edit "be") be living on a knife edge!
bleh ....
