1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompThat's not what I was getting at. One may speculate that people did at one time "see gods" (e.g. healing dreams in Asclepius' temple); if so, they probably started "seeing" them at a certain point in history. Question is why. (I'm not implying that gods existed, but they stood in for something important).
nah, who says there's anything at all to supernatural intelligence?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe gnostics , Valentinus especially, thought we had an imperfect connection with the Spirit. Although his nose/smell metaphor left something to be desired. Check out the Gospel of Truth and tell me what you think.
That's not what I was getting at. One may speculate that people did at one time "see gods" (e.g. healing dreams in Asclepius' temple); if so, they probably started "seeing" them at a certain point in history. Question is why. (I'm not implying that gods existed, but they stood in for something important).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ivanhoeI suspect it is common use vs scientific use. the english language is in general very vage and open to interperatation. one sentence can have many multiples of meanings. this is great for poets but lousy for scientists. in scientific english words have there meanings and usage very severly curtailed and pinned down so that everyone knows exactly what you mean. in this case if you wish to indicate an idea or model that has yet to be convincingly prooved/tested the word is Hypothesis. If you call something a theory you are grediting it with haveing been rigourously tested and either prooved or resisted prelonged and rigorouse attemtps to dissprove it. Evolution is for example a theory, the big bang is a theory. string and M 'theory's' are Hypotheses. (as usual scientists tend to suck at/ignoor there own rules when naming something, string theory is very popular and all that but it has an achillease heel in the fact that as of yet knowone can come up with an experiment with wich we can test it.)
Originally posted by frogstomp
try not to confuse the word theory with the word theory
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy do you have a problem with an infinite nothing not needing a begining as opposed to an infinite power not needing one?
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Froggy: "And as far as infinite complexity thats precisely why god would need a begining."
Please explain.
simplification , my dear Ivanhoe, simplification
😕
Originally posted by KellyJaySo I'll ask the obverse to the one I asded of Hoe,
If there was a time where there was nothing, but nothing, why would
there ever be anything at all now or ever?
Kelly
Why do you have a problem with the infinite existence of the universe but not with the infinite existence of an infinitely powerful being?
Originally posted by frogstompWell, I can see God being the first cause of all things, I don't see
So I'll ask the obverse to the one I asded of Hoe,
Why do you have a problem with the infinite existence of the universe but not with the infinite existence of an infinitely powerful being?
how nothing can be the cause of everything. If you now want to tell
me that everything is eternal, than I'd have to 2nd guess all of our
dating methods...well more than I do now anyway. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaysee you can't even get that right KJ. ..it's, 'Nothing lasts forever' and that has more than one meaning too.
Well, I can see God being the first cause of all things, I don't see
how nothing can be the cause of everything. If you now want to tell
me that everything is eternal, than I'd have to 2nd guess all of our
dating methods...well more than I do now anyway. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou need a chronosynclasticinfundibulum for your creation hypothesis to work KJ.
Well, I can see God being the first cause of all things, I don't see
how nothing can be the cause of everything. If you now want to tell
me that everything is eternal, than I'd have to 2nd guess all of our
dating methods...well more than I do now anyway. 🙂
Kelly