Jump to content

We are the players


Recommended Posts

There is obviously no such thing as "the one energy which we are all constituents of"

Yes, there is John, and we are all connected by it. It discludes no one, nothing. Beyond civilization, there is no good or evil, only balance and imbalance. The gift of life is the power of choice, to do our bidding with that bit of energy which comprises and connects us. Granted to us by its source, but only for a while. Heaven and hell are fodder for the living. They exist simultaneously now. Which will we choose to call home?

Edited by photon propeller
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Its not meaningless John, as obviously Einstein understood. Its just above your paygrade.

When we grasp vanilla ice cream, we begin to grasp the concept of God   There is no special case to the concept of vanilla ice cream, nor does my logic require a special circumstance, the concept of

I see the problem now. You were asserting your opinion like it was fact, and that brought out the skeptic reaction. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Yes, there is John, and we are all connected by it. It discludes no one, nothing. Beyond civilization, there is no good or evil, only balance and imbalance. The gift of life is the power of choice, to do our bidding with that bit of energy which comprises and connects us. Granted to us by its source, but only for a while. Heaven and hell are fodder for the living. They exist simultaneously now. Which will we choose to call home?

 

 

Citation needed please....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to burst you bubble Moontanman, but like the op these are my thoughts, my philosophy.

 

I see the problem now. You were asserting your opinion like it was fact, and that brought out the skeptic reaction. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see the problem now. You were asserting your opinion like it was fact, and that brought out the skeptic reaction. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here's the definition of citation: a reference to a published or unpublished source, to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources. Hence it has nothing to do with facts only the credit for ideas. In other words moontanman's comment was a low blow attempt to discredit me for my original eloquent idea. My response was true and justified so if you want to mark a comment down do it to moontanmans and do not perpetuate ignorance.

Edited by photon propeller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Soapbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a raised platform. For other uses, see Soapbox (disambiguation). For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX.
220px-Danny_Lambert.jpg
magnify-clip.png
A man soapboxing in Speakers' Corner, London

A soapbox is a raised platform on which one stands to make an impromptu speech, often about a political subject. The term originates from the days when speakers would elevate themselves by standing on a wooden crate originally used for shipment of soap or other dry goods from a manufacturer to a retail store.

The term is also used metaphorically to describe a person engaging in often flamboyant impromptu or unofficial public speaking, as in the phrases "He's on his soapbox", or "Get off your soapbox." Hyde Park, London is known for its Sunday soapbox orators, who have assembled at Speakers' Corner since 1872 to discuss religion, politics and other topics. A modern form of the soapbox is a blog: a website on which a user publishes his/her thoughts to whomever they are read by.

John, you infer soapboxing is a bad thing. In fact, it is an intrinsic concept of this site. Stop hating and start appreciating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, you are right to say I infer it, even though you meant that I imply it.

I infer that soap-boxing is bad from the fact that the rules ban it.

  • Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them."
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oddly, you are right to say I infer it, even though you meant that I imply it.

I infer that soap-boxing is bad from the fact that the rules ban it.

  • Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them."

 

Have we not been discussing the topic? We "discussed" whether or not we were of one complex energy and when presented with the evidence you completely disregarded it. In another post you said there weren't 7 electron shells when in fact as a chemist, which you profess to be, you certainly know there are. You demonstrate a pattern of bias in the disregard of any statement of evidence I have made because you are biased towards me. You are more worried about egos, politics, and the fear of criticism than of having a real discussion and presenting any original thoughts of your own. You missed the part of the definition where they gathered to "DISCUSS" topics. You "inferred" an incorrect interpretation of the definition.

Edited by photon propeller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we not been discussing the topic? We "discussed" whether or not we were of one complex energy and when presented with the evidence you completely disregarded it. In another post you said there weren't 7 electron shells when in fact as a chemist, which you profess to be, you certainly know there are. You demonstrate a pattern of bias in the disregard of any statement of evidence I have made because you are biased towards me. You are more worried about egos, politics, and the fear of criticism than of having a real discussion and presenting any original thoughts of your own. You missed the part of the definition where they gathered to "DISCUSS" topics. You "inferred" an incorrect interpretation of the definition.

 

 

PP, you have yet to support anything you have asserted, exactly what is complex energy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the total of simultaneously interacting, superimposed, electric, magnetic, gravitational, and quantum vacuum subfields. It is the everturning kaleidoscope, complexing as it turns.

 

 

Could you explain it with out mixing science and woo words?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Have we not been discussing the topic? "

No we have not.

You make a statement, we point out that it is nonsense and you carry on blithely as if we had not said anything.

 

"In another post you said there weren't 7 electron shells when in fact as a chemist, which you profess to be, you certainly know there are."

​It remains that case that there are an indefinitely large number of electron shells.

And you asserting otherwise doesn't change that, not matter how often you say it.

 

"You demonstrate a pattern of bias in the disregard of any statement of evidence I have made because you are biased towards me. "
No, I pointed out that there are not 7.

 

"You are more worried about egos, politics, and the fear of criticism than of having a real discussion and presenting any original thoughts of your own."

I worry about plenty of things,but that's not one of them.

You are simply wrong and I'm right about the numbers so what criticism would I be afraid of?

This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

is a simplistic model, but it will do for our purposes.

If you look through it you will see that there is no upper bound to the principle quantum number n.

It can rise practically without limit.

n can be much more than 7

 

"You "inferred" an incorrect interpretation of the definition."

What would your second guess be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you inferred an incorrect definition of soapboxing, as if it did not include discussion. Although not a religious topic, the association of the value of n(principal quantum number) and electron shell as an energy level is real. The bohr model is outdated and does not include wave partical duality as atomic orbitals do adding to 3 more quantum numbers to n to describe the specific symmetry of electron configuration. The value of n may theoretically be much greater than 7 but for every known element it is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. 7 specific energy levels with discrete frequency values. Coincidence? unlikely. Interesting how the distance between those levels follows a harmonic series like the fundamental wave. As the distance from the nucleus grows the distance between levels shrinks at a proportion of 7 to 1, just as wavelength shrinks as frequency rises maintaining a product of light speed. If you know of an element that exceeds this provide it.


 

 

Could you explain it with out mixing science and woo words?

Sure, all you have to do is ignore the "woo words." The idea is that there is no empty space, everything is connected, and that all the fields are simultaneously interacting. The "woo words" are a figurative description of an image of that interaction.

Edited by photon propeller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we not been discussing the topic? We "discussed" whether or not we were of one complex energy and when presented with the evidence you completely disregarded it. In another post you said there weren't 7 electron shells when in fact as a chemist, which you profess to be, you certainly know there are. You demonstrate a pattern of bias in the disregard of any statement of evidence I have made because you are biased towards me. You are more worried about egos, politics, and the fear of criticism than of having a real discussion and presenting any original thoughts of your own. You missed the part of the definition where they gathered to "DISCUSS" topics. You "inferred" an incorrect interpretation of the definition.

 

!

Moderator Note

Those discussions were locked, and you are not to re-introduce the subject. You had your chance. Get back to whatever the subject of this thread is supposed to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

!

Moderator Note

Those discussions were locked, and you are not to re-introduce the subject. You had your chance. Get back to whatever the subject of this thread is supposed to be.

I agree with you Swansont. My intentions were not to re-introduce a topic but to show a pattern of bias. Next time I will keep those examples on topic. The topic here is supposed to be the meaning of life and how it relates to a creator.

Edited by photon propeller
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Are religion and epistemology intrinsically linked?

 

No. There is no doubt an interesting area of religious epistemology - in which articles of faith, supposed philosophical proofs of the existence of god, and revelation are questioned and investigated.

 

Can these items every give rise to a rational foundation for religion, what form of truth value can we place on them, how they can/do relate to other forms of knowledge?

One could ask at another level about the possibility of knowledge concerning a supreme and supernatural entity.

Is there a fundamental divide between the knowledge gained through rational research and observation and that gained in religion, does one preclude the other, can an adherent of one form truly believe in the validity of other?

 

But epistemology looks at a far greater scope of input than mere religion - I would encapsulate epistemology as the study of knowledge and justified belief; none of my knowledge or belief relies to the smallest extent on religion. There is an intersection and partial link but it is neither necessary nor intrinsic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If religion was redefined as the search for knowledge and God was defined as the total of knowledge, epistemology would unify religions, all priests would be scientists, and the one truth would be sequentially revealed.

If ifs and and were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers. Religion is not the search for knowledge - end of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, my belief, my religion, and my God, are exactly that. I believe a creator is self evident in the nature of creation itself. One who's natural constants are the universal law. I humbly kneel at the source.

Edited by photon propeller
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, my belief, my religion, and my God, are exactly that. I believe a creator is self evident in the nature of creation itself. One who's natural constants are the universal law. I humbly kneel at the source.

In what way is it self evident? What part of reality cannot possibly be explained by natural means? I am not trolling you, I would genuinely like to know, from my stand point nothing is the only thing beyond methodological naturalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only addition to the reality of nature that I imply is a definition of its source, that source defined as the creator, the master. The proportion of knowledge we unveil is relative to the amount of time we have to do so. We must work together,and allow science to resolve the mysteries, while keeping faith in the source of the mystery itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only addition to the reality of nature that I imply is a definition of its source, that source defined as the creator, the master. The proportion of knowledge we unveil is relative to the amount of time we have to do so. We must work together,and allow science to resolve the mysteries, while keeping faith in the source of the mystery itself.

 

 

Seriously, why does that "source" have to be an intelligent being, nothing points in that direction, at best everything came about as a naturalistic process we don't understand yet..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.