StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 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. I've bookmarked this to refer to in future threads. End is obviously too lazy to look for other discussion forums. No I just love y'all. End3, can you please answer my question on post #550? I really want to know what you answer is. Today is the last day I can be in the forum for this week so if you reply after today I have to get back at you next week. Was saying SL that Moses gave off light when he came down off the mountain after being in the presence of God was analogous to a sample passing through the plasma.... Didn't see any images in the plasma.....just "light"/radiation....Moses glowed. And you perceived / saw / felt the radiation from the ICP plasma, thus it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 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. I've bookmarked this to refer to in future threads. End is obviously too lazy to look for other discussion forums. No I just love y'all. End3, can you please answer my question on post #550? I really want to know what you answer is. Today is the last day I can be in the forum for this week so if you reply after today I have to get back at you next week. Was saying SL that Moses gave off light when he came down off the mountain after being in the presence of God was analogous to a sample passing through the plasma.... Didn't see any images in the plasma.....just "light"/radiation....Moses glowed. And you perceived / saw / felt the radiation from the ICP plasma, thus it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Other than making the correlation in my mind, I saw, touched, felt nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 This is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Pointless this is. -- Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 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. I've bookmarked this to refer to in future threads. End is obviously too lazy to look for other discussion forums. No I just love y'all. End3, can you please answer my question on post #550? I really want to know what you answer is. Today is the last day I can be in the forum for this week so if you reply after today I have to get back at you next week. Was saying SL that Moses gave off light when he came down off the mountain after being in the presence of God was analogous to a sample passing through the plasma.... Didn't see any images in the plasma.....just "light"/radiation....Moses glowed. And you perceived / saw / felt the radiation from the ICP plasma, thus it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Other than making the correlation in my mind, I saw, touched, felt nothing. So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, I agree for some this is pointless but for me this is valuable. I practice putting myself in end3's frame of thoughts and seeing an issue from different angles. This is very valuable for me. Also, we never know, maybe we have been placing a seed of doubt in end3's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective. Triple dog dare. Make it good and sciency...I like sciency.. Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, I agree for some this is pointless but for me this is valuable. I practice putting myself in end3's frame of thoughts and seeing an issue from different angles. This is very valuable for me. Also, we never know, maybe we have been placing a seed of doubt in end3's mind. To be specific what I mean is: A Christian will deny any observation that implies that God is imaginary. If the Christian is honest about such observations they will become an ex-Christian. Can't have that so Christianity requires that we lie to ourselves and practice self deception. You are of course welcome to engage in order to learn about the mentality but you won't get an honest conversation out of a Christian while they are actively deceiving themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Yes for two reasons...one, it's still my perception. Two, science doesn't have the ability do totally define objective. This doesn't mean that we can't adhere to practicing objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, I agree for some this is pointless but for me this is valuable. I practice putting myself in end3's frame of thoughts and seeing an issue from different angles. This is very valuable for me. Also, we never know, maybe we have been placing a seed of doubt in end3's mind. To be specific what I mean is: A Christian will deny any observation that implies that God is imaginary. If the Christian is honest about such observations they will become an ex-Christian. Can't have that so Christianity requires that we lie to ourselves and practice self deception. You are of course welcome to engage in order to learn about the mentality but you won't get an honest conversation out of a Christian while they are actively deceiving themselves. BAA just gave us an example a couple of pages back of a person that theorized something long before it was measured? Could this not happen with God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective. Triple dog dare. Make it good and sciency...I like sciency.. Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps. I have already covered this twice. Here it is for the third time. Each of us is part of the objective cosmos. The objective world is what we perceive through our subjective perception. The cosmos is the object of our perception. For flavor: <Unikity> Science! Science! Science! . . . numbers . . . is this working? </Unikity> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Yes for two reasons...one, it's still my perception. Two, science doesn't have the ability do totally define objective. This doesn't mean that we can't adhere to practicing objectivity. This means your quote"The process has been hearing Scripture and realizing a correlation...." is faulty. It also means your understanding about scripture is faulty per your definition of subjective. Yes or no. (Sorry it took me a while to reply because I tried to figure out how to quote two different posts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective. Triple dog dare. Make it good and sciency...I like sciency.. Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps. I have already covered this twice. Here it is for the third time. Each of us is part of the objective cosmos. The objective world is what we perceive through our subjective perception. The cosmos is the object of our perception. For flavor: <Unikity> Science! Science! Science! . . . numbers . . . is this working? </Unikity> You've just told me that everything you perceive is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no. yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Yes for two reasons...one, it's still my perception. Two, science doesn't have the ability do totally define objective. This doesn't mean that we can't adhere to practicing objectivity. This means your quote"The process has been hearing Scripture and realizing a correlation...." is faulty. It also means your understanding about scripture is faulty per your definition of subjective. Yes or no. (Sorry it took me a while to reply because I tried to figure out how to quote two different posts) Yes, because we are not omniscient or have the ability to gain complete objectivity, then our only choice is faith. "Father forgive them as they do not know" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no.yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Yes for two reasons...one, it's still my perception. Two, science doesn't have the ability do totally define objective. This doesn't mean that we can't adhere to practicing objectivity. This means your quote"The process has been hearing Scripture and realizing a correlation...." is faulty. It also means your understanding about scripture is faulty per your definition of subjective. Yes or no. (Sorry it took me a while to reply because I tried to figure out how to quote two different posts) Yes, because we are not omniscient or have the ability to gain complete objectivity, then our only choice is faith. "Father forgive them as they do not know" There you go, we arrive at the core of your answer... faith. Is your faith objective or subjective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, I agree for some this is pointless but for me this is valuable. I practice putting myself in end3's frame of thoughts and seeing an issue from different angles. This is very valuable for me. Also, we never know, maybe we have been placing a seed of doubt in end3's mind. To be specific what I mean is: A Christian will deny any observation that implies that God is imaginary. If the Christian is honest about such observations they will become an ex-Christian. Can't have that so Christianity requires that we lie to ourselves and practice self deception. You are of course welcome to engage in order to learn about the mentality but you won't get an honest conversation out of a Christian while they are actively deceiving themselves. BAA just gave us an example a couple of pages back of a person that theorized something long before it was measured? Could this not happen with God? Are you willing to accept that the planet Jupiter might really be a god? Are you ready to accept that Mars, Venus, Saturn and Mercury might really be gods and they only pretend to be inanimate objects in order to fool modern scientists? Your god is equally plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Sorry, I screwed up the quotes The last sentence is mine: Yes, because we are not omniscient or have the ability to gain complete objectivity, then our only choice is faith.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 25, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 25, 2014 I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective. Triple dog dare. Make it good and sciency...I like sciency.. Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps. You already asked us to give you ideas and you're still ignoring mine. Don't start your little "truth or dare" game until you've addressed what you've already asked for and received. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no.yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Yes for two reasons...one, it's still my perception. Two, science doesn't have the ability do totally define objective. This doesn't mean that we can't adhere to practicing objectivity. This means your quote"The process has been hearing Scripture and realizing a correlation...." is faulty. It also means your understanding about scripture is faulty per your definition of subjective. Yes or no. (Sorry it took me a while to reply because I tried to figure out how to quote two different posts) Yes, because we are not omniscient or have the ability to gain complete objectivity, then our only choice is faith. "Father forgive them as they do not know" There you go, we arrive at the core of your answer... faith. Is your faith objective or subjective? both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes, I agree for some this is pointless but for me this is valuable. I practice putting myself in end3's frame of thoughts and seeing an issue from different angles. This is very valuable for me. Also, we never know, maybe we have been placing a seed of doubt in end3's mind. To be specific what I mean is: A Christian will deny any observation that implies that God is imaginary. If the Christian is honest about such observations they will become an ex-Christian. Can't have that so Christianity requires that we lie to ourselves and practice self deception. You are of course welcome to engage in order to learn about the mentality but you won't get an honest conversation out of a Christian while they are actively deceiving themselves. Thanks. I want to see how far I can push with end3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective. Triple dog dare. Make it good and sciency...I like sciency.. Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps. You already asked us to give you ideas and you're still ignoring mine. Don't start your little "truth or dare" game until you've addressed what you've already asked for and received. Looked like poetry to me. You write well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Thanks. I want to see how far I can push with end3. I'm somewhat thrilled someone seems to understand my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So, it was subjective (your definition of subjective). Yes or no.yes So, since your experience of seeing god through chemistry and physics is subjective, it is faulty (based on your definition of subjective). Yes or no. Yes for two reasons...one, it's still my perception. Two, science doesn't have the ability do totally define objective. This doesn't mean that we can't adhere to practicing objectivity. This means your quote"The process has been hearing Scripture and realizing a correlation...." is faulty. It also means your understanding about scripture is faulty per your definition of subjective. Yes or no. (Sorry it took me a while to reply because I tried to figure out how to quote two different posts) Yes, because we are not omniscient or have the ability to gain complete objectivity, then our only choice is faith. "Father forgive them as they do not know" There you go, we arrive at the core of your answer... faith. Is your faith objective or subjective? both. Since your faith is subjective (you answered both which means saying it is subjective is correct), it is faulty. Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts