Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I'll read more closely. I was going by "the squirrel's life has meaning, both to the squirrel"....

Have you had time to explore the extra-ordinary world of leaf cutter ants yet?  I posted several links which demonstrate the value of the tree and the ants, both to each other, and to a host of other species within their environment.

 

Seriously, End3, look past the beliefs and see the awesomeness.

 

Awesomeness of the RELATIONSHIP the ant has to the tree?

 

And grace!  Don't forget the grace!

 

Seriously, it's not a "relationship" as you would define one.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

What Moses' glowing face? I don't see anything.

 

Please, End3, don't be ridiculous. A few years ago my eyes saw pikachu stickers that my kids pasted on my car window dancing around after I pulled an all nighter prior to an audit at my workplace. Does it mean that I saw divine intervention by pikachu?

The first time I went to college, it was a school in Florida and the campus was peppered with beautiful and ancient water oaks.  One exam week, I pulled several all-nighters in a row to study.  During one of my exams, I looked out the window and the Spanish Moss on a giant water oak had suddenly turned into the beards of playful drwarves, undulating gently in the wind.

 

Therefore, the objective reality of my subjective beliefs proves the existence of Gimli, son of Gloin.

 

Right?

 

Ha, YES! but can you find Gimli and Gloin in chemistry and physics???? That's when you know God is near...lol.

 

What's the chemical formula for "god"?  What's "god's" atomic weight?  What other chemicals can "god" bond with?

 

What's "god's" reactivity... oh yeah, "highly volatile", skip that one.

 

That's fine, maybe it hasn't been studied. Is there some hormone or something when people agree or find belonging via a relationship? It's just my hypothesis. Is God yet undiscovered like BAA pointing out the residual microwaves? I truthfully find it hard to ignore when reading the language of the Bible.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

I'll read more closely. I was going by "the squirrel's life has meaning, both to the squirrel"....

Have you had time to explore the extra-ordinary world of leaf cutter ants yet?  I posted several links which demonstrate the value of the tree and the ants, both to each other, and to a host of other species within their environment.

 

Seriously, End3, look past the beliefs and see the awesomeness.

 

Awesomeness of the RELATIONSHIP the ant has to the tree?

 

And grace!  Don't forget the grace!

 

Seriously, it's not a "relationship" as you would define one.

 

hey hey hey....if you will look at my relationship and grace thread....I pointed out part of the conversation would turn towards what we see in nature pointing the same direction.....we just never got to that part of the discussion...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

I'll read more closely. I was going by "the squirrel's life has meaning, both to the squirrel"....

Have you had time to explore the extra-ordinary world of leaf cutter ants yet?  I posted several links which demonstrate the value of the tree and the ants, both to each other, and to a host of other species within their environment.

 

Seriously, End3, look past the beliefs and see the awesomeness.

 

Awesomeness of the RELATIONSHIP the ant has to the tree?

 

And grace!  Don't forget the grace!

 

Seriously, it's not a "relationship" as you would define one.

 

hey hey hey....if you will look at my relationship and grace thread....I pointed out part of the conversation would turn towards what we see in nature pointing the same direction.....we just never got to that part of the discussion...

 

Sure, there's harmony in nature.  There has to be otherwise entire ecosystems would collapse.  That doesn't prove that god's divine logos is behind it all.  Some species even cooperate with each other.  In one of the links about the leaf cutter ants you'll find a species that actually entices other ant species to live with them in order to afford more protection for the tree.  That doesn't mean jesus died for anybody.  Symbiosis can be found throughout the evolutionary record.

 

I'll grant you that "relationships" exist in nature; but they are due to evolutionary necessity, not divine will.

[Orbit]

End you keep changing the subject.

1. You claim no reality exists outside of your perception. This has been refuted by BAA, by me, and others. Gravity and radio waves are good examples of why you are wrong.

 

2. Why do you want to have a "relationship" with an ExC? So you can convert them? What are you doing?

[Guest end3]

End you keep changing the subject.

1. You claim no reality exists outside of your perception. This has been refuted by BAA, by me, and others. Gravity and radio waves are good examples of why you are wrong.

 

2. Why do you want to have a "relationship" with an ExC? So you can convert them? What are you doing?

I come here to pass the time of day. Conversations, discussions, etc.. Not many folks here in my area that find this level of conversation fun.

[Justus]

 

 

Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

Ah, another ad hominem.  You're getting good at these, End3.

 

So, you are suggesting that the squirrel doesn't perceive the danger presented by the hawk swooping down upon it and therefore will not try to save it's own meaningless life (its life being meaningless because it does not perceive itself to be alive).

 

I can see that biology is not your strong suit.

 

You were the one who started....'be a good little Christian". I'm certain you can carry on a conversation without the little attacks.

 

If you would like the squirrel to have it's own relative meanings, it's ok with me....but the squirrels perception will be subjective too.

 

 

Atheists hide behind evolution as a defence, after all when the Pope tells the world that the Evolution and the Big Bang are valid scientific truths then that is all the prove they need right there.

I mean 5 billion years seems like a lot of time but when it takes i tens of thousands of years for just one random mutations to occur and then multiply by the hundred of thousands of time it would if require to form the  vast diversity of living matter it couldn't be done in 20 billion years.   But anyone that going to believe that any definitive principle can be based upon a series of random events then they are going to believe anything.    

 

Like the burning bush, they can't see the that which in front of them since they think the LORD spoke to Moses out of the light of the fire from a tree that didn't burn,   But the scriptures never says that the LORD spoke to Moses out of the light of the fire..  One the see one in nature then they will get it but they might never see it since they is no reason to look if it does not exist.

LINK

 

I wonder if they actually calculated the number of tens of thousands of years that each random mutation would be required to even produce the of variance necessary to result with just a varying degree of change and number of  times the of these occurrence would have been required, like hundred of thousands of thousands and have had at least some 7.5 trillion years.    I wonder if they know how long it takes light to produce a particle of mass?  But if I am not mistaken they have a rule that says mass can can not be created nor destroyed, it only changes form.  

 

Don't take the insults personal, remember that they are just a light that is growing that the lights shine on.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

Ah, another ad hominem.  You're getting good at these, End3.

 

So, you are suggesting that the squirrel doesn't perceive the danger presented by the hawk swooping down upon it and therefore will not try to save it's own meaningless life (its life being meaningless because it does not perceive itself to be alive).

 

I can see that biology is not your strong suit.

 

You were the one who started....'be a good little Christian". I'm certain you can carry on a conversation without the little attacks.

 

If you would like the squirrel to have it's own relative meanings, it's ok with me....but the squirrels perception will be subjective too.

 

 

Atheists hide behind evolution as a defence, after all when the Pope tells the world that the Evolution and the Big Bang are valid scientific truths then that is all the prove they need right there.

I mean 5 billion years seems like a lot of time but when it takes i tens of thousands of years for just one random mutations to occur and then multiply by the hundred of thousands of time it would if require to form the  vast diversity of living matter it couldn't be done in 20 billion years.   But anyone that going to believe that any definitive principle can be based upon a series of random events then they are going to believe anything.    

 

Like the burning bush, they can't see the that which in front of them since they think the LORD spoke to Moses out of the light of the fire from a tree that didn't burn,   But the scriptures never says that the LORD spoke to Moses out of the light of the fire..  One the see one in nature then they will get it but they might never see it since they is no reason to look if it does not exist.

LINK

 

I wonder if they actually calculated the number of tens of thousands of years that each random mutation would be required to even produce the of variance necessary to result with just a varying degree of change and number of  times the of these occurrence would have been required, like hundred of thousands of thousands and have had at least some 7.5 trillion years.    I wonder if they know how long it takes light to produce a particle of mass?  But if I am not mistaken they have a rule that says mass can can not be created nor destroyed, it only changes form.  

 

Don't take the insults personal, remember that they are just a light that is growing that the lights shine on.

 

The evidence for evolution is in the fossil record. It's not controversial. What does your post have to do with the topic of this thread? You're just using End's thread for your unrelated agenda.

[mymistake]

 

End you keep changing the subject.

1. You claim no reality exists outside of your perception. This has been refuted by BAA, by me, and others. Gravity and radio waves are good examples of why you are wrong.

 

2. Why do you want to have a "relationship" with an ExC? So you can convert them? What are you doing?

I come here to pass the time of day. Conversations, discussions, etc.. Not many folks here in my area that find this level of conversation fun.

 

 

 

However it is a big internet.  Wouldn't you be happier at a different website where the population is more open to your (unsupported) idea that everything is a relationship of Grace?

 

You keep bringing it up here.  We respond by pointing out how it doesn't match the facts or make much sense.  Then you get frustrated.  Yet you bring it up again anyway.  Wash.  Rinse.  Repeat.

 

You are not finding new evidence that supports your idea.

 

Without that evidence our response to your idea won't change.

 

 

Just saying.

[bornagainathiest]

 

First off End, 

 

Thanks for reading and responding without getting mad at me.

I hope this stems from the fact you can see I'm making an effort to see your p.o.v. 

 

BAA,

 

I'm not opposed to saying there is a reality outside of my subjectivity. There very likely are planets orbiting suns, blah blah. And it's likely that our subjective observance of things are very similar. And we can even do our level best to take out the differences in our observances through science.

 

But yes, my views will always be explicitly mine not because I can't agree to practice science, but because my physiology is constantly dynamic. I literally can't remove my subjectivity from myself because of the dynamic nature of my body.

 

But may I ask how did you arrive at these two conclusions?

A.)  That you can't remove subjectivity from yourself.

B.)  That some dynamic aspect of your body is the cause of your subjectivity.

 

Presumably you drew these conclusions by faith - because faith is the only option acceptable to you?

 

So isn't that an example of you using your faith to rule out all other methodologies except your faith?

 

Which would leave your faith untested and un-testable by anything but... your faith?

 

Meaning that you believe A and B by untested and un-testable faith.  

 

And since you have no means of checking or testing these conclusions - you simply accept A and B on faith and by faith.

 

So, you could be 100% wrong End ...and you'd never know.

Because for you, the only acceptable method of examining the problem of subjectivity is a method that always confirms what you've already have faith in.  Your faith confirms to you that you can't remove subjectivity from yourself - so you believe (by faith) that you can't.

Your faith also confirms that some dynamic aspect of your body is responsible for this - so you believe (by faith) that this is so.

 

Also, science is not advanced enough to DEFINE how to remove subjectivity.

 

Ah... so you know this... by faith?  

Or do you just accept by faith that this is so?

​Having ruled out all others means of checking, except faith?

 

Please tell me how you know this, End.  Please answer these questions.

 

And on the philosophical side, even if we could remove subjectivity through science, it's really meaningless anyhow if humanity becomes extinct. Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

 

Please note that I am not attacking you personally in this post, End.

 

I'm trying to work logically thru what I think your beliefs are and where they lead to.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

A) Subjectivity to me BAA in my mind stems from me viewing something through my individual uniqueness....a uniqueness that is constantly changing due to chemistry, physics, etc.

I do not draw these statements by faith but through my understanding of chemistry and physics. Our bodies are a constant reaction.

 

However, you have ruled out science as a valid method of dealing with subjectivity.

Therefore your understanding of chemistry and physics is invalid because it is subjective.

You do see that, don't you?

 

One of the only ways I in my mind can exclude subjectivity if it were possible to be reductionistic in evaluation with the human body to correlate the human experience to the individual perception and then perform associated calculations to adjust. I find this far beyond the scope of scientific prowess.

 

And therefore neither the science of chemistry or physics is a valid method of dealing with subjectivity.

You are back at square one.

You do see that the very method you've used to arrive at this conclusion invalidates the method you used to arrive at this conclusion?

There is no escape!

 

But I am up for suggestions. Seriously, everyone give me their ideas rather than me getting beat down for mine. It would be pleasant for a change.

 

Then I suggest you ask yourself how science can be valid, when (by your own methodology) it cannot adequately deal with your own subjectivity.  

 

The very answer (dynamic changes) you claim it gives you is disallowed by the dynamic changes it cannot deal with.

 

Care to try and explain to me how that works?

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

First off End, 

 

Thanks for reading and responding without getting mad at me.

I hope this stems from the fact you can see I'm making an effort to see your p.o.v. 

 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

I'm not opposed to saying there is a reality outside of my subjectivity. There very likely are planets orbiting suns, blah blah. And it's likely that our subjective observance of things are very similar. And we can even do our level best to take out the differences in our observances through science.

 

But yes, my views will always be explicitly mine not because I can't agree to practice science, but because my physiology is constantly dynamic. I literally can't remove my subjectivity from myself because of the dynamic nature of my body.

 

But may I ask how did you arrive at these two conclusions?

A.)  That you can't remove subjectivity from yourself.

B.)  That some dynamic aspect of your body is the cause of your subjectivity.

 

Presumably you drew these conclusions by faith - because faith is the only option acceptable to you?

 

So isn't that an example of you using your faith to rule out all other methodologies except your faith?

 

Which would leave your faith untested and un-testable by anything but... your faith?

 

Meaning that you believe A and B by untested and un-testable faith.  

 

And since you have no means of checking or testing these conclusions - you simply accept A and B on faith and by faith.

 

So, you could be 100% wrong End ...and you'd never know.

Because for you, the only acceptable method of examining the problem of subjectivity is a method that always confirms what you've already have faith in.  Your faith confirms to you that you can't remove subjectivity from yourself - so you believe (by faith) that you can't.

Your faith also confirms that some dynamic aspect of your body is responsible for this - so you believe (by faith) that this is so.

 

Also, science is not advanced enough to DEFINE how to remove subjectivity.

 

Ah... so you know this... by faith?  

Or do you just accept by faith that this is so?

​Having ruled out all others means of checking, except faith?

 

Please tell me how you know this, End.  Please answer these questions.

 

And on the philosophical side, even if we could remove subjectivity through science, it's really meaningless anyhow if humanity becomes extinct. Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

 

Please note that I am not attacking you personally in this post, End.

 

I'm trying to work logically thru what I think your beliefs are and where they lead to.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

A) Subjectivity to me BAA in my mind stems from me viewing something through my individual uniqueness....a uniqueness that is constantly changing due to chemistry, physics, etc.

I do not draw these statements by faith but through my understanding of chemistry and physics. Our bodies are a constant reaction.

 

However, you have ruled out science as a valid method of dealing with subjectivity.

Therefore your understanding of chemistry and physics is invalid because it is subjective.

You do see that, don't you?

 

One of the only ways I in my mind can exclude subjectivity if it were possible to be reductionistic in evaluation with the human body to correlate the human experience to the individual perception and then perform associated calculations to adjust. I find this far beyond the scope of scientific prowess.

 

And therefore neither the science of chemistry or physics is a valid method of dealing with subjectivity.

You are back at square one.

You do see that the very method you've used to arrive at this conclusion invalidates the method you used to arrive at this conclusion?

There is no escape!

 

But I am up for suggestions. Seriously, everyone give me their ideas rather than me getting beat down for mine. It would be pleasant for a change.

 

Then I suggest you ask yourself how science can be valid, when (by your own methodology) it cannot adequately deal with your own subjectivity.  

 

The very answer (dynamic changes) you claim it gives you is disallowed by the dynamic changes it cannot deal with.

 

Care to try and explain to me how that works?

 

 

I do not rule out science BAA, I just find it incomplete. That's just a fact. Saying that science can rule out subjectivity would be actually abusing the idea of science itself. Part of my job is integrity....that I don't pencil in numbers. If I were to say science can do what it can't, then I would essentially be doing that.

 

I have asked for input on how science can rule out the problems I see with it. The Prof has offered up brain studies, but I am assuming these are a long way from defining to the level that I am speculating. It's an impossibility in my mind.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

Ah, another ad hominem.  You're getting good at these, End3.

 

So, you are suggesting that the squirrel doesn't perceive the danger presented by the hawk swooping down upon it and therefore will not try to save it's own meaningless life (its life being meaningless because it does not perceive itself to be alive).

 

I can see that biology is not your strong suit.

 

You were the one who started....'be a good little Christian". I'm certain you can carry on a conversation without the little attacks.

 

If you would like the squirrel to have it's own relative meanings, it's ok with me....but the squirrels perception will be subjective too.

 

 

Atheists hide behind evolution as a defence, after all when the Pope tells the world that the Evolution and the Big Bang are valid scientific truths then that is all the prove they need right there.

I mean 5 billion years seems like a lot of time but when it takes i tens of thousands of years for just one random mutations to occur and then multiply by the hundred of thousands of time it would if require to form the  vast diversity of living matter it couldn't be done in 20 billion years.   But anyone that going to believe that any definitive principle can be based upon a series of random events then they are going to believe anything.    

 

Like the burning bush, they can't see the that which in front of them since they think the LORD spoke to Moses out of the light of the fire from a tree that didn't burn,   But the scriptures never says that the LORD spoke to Moses out of the light of the fire..  One the see one in nature then they will get it but they might never see it since they is no reason to look if it does not exist.

LINK

 

I wonder if they actually calculated the number of tens of thousands of years that each random mutation would be required to even produce the of variance necessary to result with just a varying degree of change and number of  times the of these occurrence would have been required, like hundred of thousands of thousands and have had at least some 7.5 trillion years.    I wonder if they know how long it takes light to produce a particle of mass?  But if I am not mistaken they have a rule that says mass can can not be created nor destroyed, it only changes form.  

 

Don't take the insults personal, remember that they are just a light that is growing that the lights shine on.

 

How many times does it need to be explained to you that evolution is not random?  Are you just not listening or is the science behind natural selection simply beyond your intellectual capacity to understand?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

But I am up for suggestions. Seriously, everyone give me their ideas rather than me getting beat down for mine. It would be pleasant for a change.

 

Here's my idea.  There is an objective reality that does not need to be defined by subjective beliefs.  Many of us can see this objective reality because we are able to look at it, dare I say, objectively.  Many of us can understand this objective reality because we are able to think about it, again, dare I say it, objectively.  Moreover, many of us can appreciate, and even stand in awe, of this objective reality because we realize that this objective reality was here long before we were and will continue to be here long after we return to the fires which forged us billions of years ago in the cores of stars.

 

It is possible to see this objective reality clearly, once a one gets out of one's own self.  I do not mean this in a spiritual or metaphysical way; but rather, I mean one must have the ability to look past one's own subjectivity, perception... one's own prejudices and pre-conceived ideas.  In other words, one must be honest, open-minded, and willing.  When one finds that ability, one can very quickly see that the life of a squirrel, made up of the same atoms, smashed in the crucible of the same stars, as all other living things, including humans, however feeble-minded (and I include myself in that description).

 

Nothing will keep you from success in this life faster than contempt prior to investigation.  It, therefore, behooves each of us to investigate, rationally, critically, and, yes, I dare say it, objectively.

 

Wow.  You ask us to present our ideas to you and when I do, you completely ignore it.

[Guest end3]

 

 

But I am up for suggestions. Seriously, everyone give me their ideas rather than me getting beat down for mine. It would be pleasant for a change.

Here's my idea.  There is an objective reality that does not need to be defined by subjective beliefs.  Many of us can see this objective reality because we are able to look at it, dare I say, objectively.  Many of us can understand this objective reality because we are able to think about it, again, dare I say it, objectively.  Moreover, many of us can appreciate, and even stand in awe, of this objective reality because we realize that this objective reality was here long before we were and will continue to be here long after we return to the fires which forged us billions of years ago in the cores of stars.

 

It is possible to see this objective reality clearly, once a one gets out of one's own self.  I do not mean this in a spiritual or metaphysical way; but rather, I mean one must have the ability to look past one's own subjectivity, perception... one's own prejudices and pre-conceived ideas.  In other words, one must be honest, open-minded, and willing.  When one finds that ability, one can very quickly see that the life of a squirrel, made up of the same atoms, smashed in the crucible of the same stars, as all other living things, including humans, however feeble-minded (and I include myself in that description).

 

Nothing will keep you from success in this life faster than contempt prior to investigation.  It, therefore, behooves each of us to investigate, rationally, critically, and, yes, I dare say it, objectively.

 

Wow.  You ask us to present our ideas to you and when I do, you completely ignore it.

 

I'm sorry Prof, I think I overlooked that post in the posting frenzy....thanks, I will read.

[Ravenstar]

 

No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined.

 

No.. the universe and everything in it has it's own value regardless whether our little minds or EGO's are involved. This is what bugs me… the complete narcissism of christians. me, me, me… Seriously.. nothing has value unless humans define it? How flipping incredibly egocentric.

 

We could cease to exist as a species tomorrow and the universe would still BE. Probably better off.

[sdelsolray]

 

I said this way upthread and will say it again. What you are agruing is solipsism--the philosophical idea that nothing exists besides you and your perception. This is not new, or unique. Surely you can see that this position is ridiculous.

 

 

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")^%5B1%5D is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

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

What were you before you were you? Things were defined, had meaning, and weren't ridiculous before you were born?

 

This poster is a closet narcissist, except when he isn't in the closet.  When out of the closet (like in the post immediately above), he's just a self-centered, me me me attention whore.  Without many, if any, friends or relationships.  Or communion.  Or grace.  Instead, it's a presentation of creepy and smarmy emptiness.  It really must suck to be him.  Really suck.

 

Feeding this troll is probably not good for his mental health.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My guess is End3 is going to say something like this: The benefit that the ants give is defined by human, so it is subjective from the human point of view. I think we cannot give him any examples from around us because by his definition everything turns subjective once we talk, observe, think, etc etc etc about it.

Yes. If y'all feel any different, please put the concept out there.

 

Yet somehow this disqualifies me from talking science. If the truth were known, because I do science everyday all day, I probably evaluate things more objectively than most.

 

 

End3, you don't evaluate things more objectively than most. Your understanding of objective is derived from bible that you trust based on faith, which is very subjective (the dictionary definition that most people accept). Also, no one disqualifies you from talking science. What has happened so far is you are not talking science, what you are talking is your belief. You are the most subjective person in this whole discussion.

 

Moreover, please don't take this as taking a jab at you, but what you are doing daily is not science. What you are doing is simply running an application of science, like most things in life. What you are doing is no different than an operator running a CNC machine. Both of you are doing a job based on science. 

Doing science means probing deeper on a specific subject, applying scientific theories to a specific subject.

 

See, you don't know me SL. I had long since finished my degree and worked in an environmental lab before I was ever a Christian. The process has been hearing Scripture and realizing a correlation....weak though some of you think it may be.

 

 

Pardon me, but can you elaborate what you mean by the bolded and red part?

Are you saying by working in the lab you has been hearing scripture and then you realize the connection of what you are doing with scripture that you believe in?

I really am trying to understand what you are thinking.

 

Here's one of my favs....Moses' glowing face....seems very much like ICP analysis. What's your opinion?

 

 

 

What Moses' glowing face? I don't see anything.

 

Please, End3, don't be ridiculous. A few years ago my eyes saw pikachu stickers that my kids pasted on my car window dancing around after I pulled an all nighter prior to an audit at my workplace. Does it mean that I saw divine intervention by pikachu?

 

I find it makes the Bible true....paraphrasing....God is in plain sight. The framework of creation, i.e. the chemistry and physics of the ICP pretty much match the Moses' glowing face....God being the plasma. You do with it what you wish.

 

 

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

[Fweethawt]

If a bull shits and nobody is around to hear it, does it still go PLOP?

[Orbit]

If a bull shits and nobody is around to hear it, does it still go PLOP?

According to End, no.

[Guest end3]

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

Yes

[mymistake]

 

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

Yes

 

 

 

Yet you perceived it from something . . . so doesn't that mean the object of your perception is objective?

[StillLooking]

 

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

Yes

 

Then per your definition the moses' image that you think you saw in the plasma is faulty. IOW you can be wrong when you perceived god thru chemistry or physics.

Yes or no? Your answer can only be yes if you are consistent.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

Yes

 

Then per your definition the moses' image that you think you saw in the plasma is faulty. IOW you can be wrong when you perceived god thru chemistry or physics.

Yes or no? Your answer can only be yes if you are consistent.

 

I didn't see Moses face in the plasma. I'll explain tomorrow.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

Yes

 

 

 

Yet you perceived it from something . . . so doesn't that mean the object of your perception is objective?

 

That we could see it as it is. The thing is we all see it differently.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

Since you perceived the ICP process, this means what you saw is subjective (your definition of subjective), is it?

Yes

 

Then per your definition the moses' image that you think you saw in the plasma is faulty. IOW you can be wrong when you perceived god thru chemistry or physics.

Yes or no? Your answer can only be yes if you are consistent.

 

I didn't see Moses face in the plasma. I'll explain tomorrow.

 

 

It doesn't matter what you saw / perceived in the plasma. What matters is you perceived it, so per your definition what you saw became subjective. Yes or no.