Driver to drive?

[keith]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:56:58 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

snip

The other proof that these are all the same guy is that none of them
has ever evidenced a shred of humor.

Not one that you seem to be equipped to appreciate ...

....and that repartee was somehow humorous? Oh, HaHaHa!

--
Keith

 

[Parse Tree]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <w8kKd.279771$f47.55410@news.easynews.com>, on 01/28/05



I paid attention. Your 'evidence' was simply not worth the effort it
took you.


Because I was never attempting to prove God exists. You can't worm out of
it, you were wrong.

No, because you were claiming incorrect 'evidence' was evidence.

 

[Parse Tree]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:02:47 GMT, Parse Tree
account@domain.extension> wrote:



Do you understand yet that logic is not actually putting any sort of
limitation on god? It's just seeing it god is consistent with logic. God
is not, ergo god cannot logically exist. It's really quite simple.


---
You're arguing from the fundamentalist point of view of someone who's
intellect is restricted to recognizing only the rules of this plane of
existence, bound by its four dimensions and its physical laws, because
you can't see past that.

No, not at all. If something is incompatible with a system's laws, then
it is incompatible with a system's laws. It is as simple as that.

I could stop believing in the truth of arithmetic, but that wouldn't
change the fact that 4+4=8 in arithmetic, and that 4+4 does not equal 10
in arithmetic.

That is, at your current level of
development, you can't accept the proposition that lifeforms operating
under rules different from ours can exist.

No, that's not it at all. You still don't understand.

 

[Bradley1234]

<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1106923152.985329.124890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Bradley1234 wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1106827969.254835.64860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


The Republicans weren't content to rely on religion to mobilise
their
voters/suckers, but had to invoke non-existent weapons of mass
destruction as well.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


The non existent wmd that killed millions of Kurds and Iranians?

Once Saddam had destroyed them - around 1994 - they no longer existed,
and didn't represent a justification for the immediate invasion of
Irak.

Saddam was losing Billions with a B in possible revenue from oil and free
trade if he could have shown he destroyed them. In 1995? one of his family
defected to the US and showed proof of the wmd. He was invited back to
Iraq, no hard feelings, he returned and was tortured and killed. The
Egyptian government said there was no doubt Saddam had and tested wmd.

But the goal here is not about wmd, but of hating the United STates and our
form of government, and the freedom we have here.

Immediate? 13 years and at least 16 formal UN declarations forcing Iraq to
comply and show it didnt have illegal weapons? 13 years of lies by Iraq,
their shooting at allied aircraft in the no fly zone was justification to
launch a full scale war with Iraq, but we didnt. Clinton wouldnt do
anything of substance, he only smiled and pardoned his cronies who were
convicted of fraud and cocaine trafficking

Or the wmd that was found and verified in Iraq in 2002?

Reference? IIRR your guys found something vaguely suspicious, but
couldn't persuade anybody that it was worth a row of beans.

When the UN oil for food scandal was the reason France and Germany opposed
the war? That shows it wasnt about the facts, of course wmd was found, the
largest financial scandal in the history of mankind was going on between
France, Germany and the Saddam government, plus who knows how many other
nations, they and socialists in the US (and the almost socialist DNC), those
in England and Europe who love corruption and hate the USA were siding with
Saddam.

When the chemical weapons were verified, including a blistering agent held
over from the first gulf war (apparently), democrat-Saddam loyalists said:
hmmm well it is wmd, but it looks old, so it doesnt count.

World Net Daily www.wnd.com and News Max www.newsmax.com carry the
facts as reported

Or the VX nerve gas cannisters found in Iraq?

Someone found a few old nerve gas shells - general opinion was that
they had been overloked, rather than hidden.

So, you would side with Saddam on that one? He is just your average
friendly murderous dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people, and
swore under penalty of war that there were NO illegal weapons. Oh sure, you
give him full credit, his staff just forgot about them. It shows where your
allegiance is.

or the barrels washed into the ground that got into a river
in Iraq and tens of thousands of cattle and wild animals died from
symptoms
of VX or anthrax? That report that the democrats didnt want America
to hear
about?

Reference? The rest of the world didn't get to hear about it either.

No, didnt WANT to hear it. Finding wmd would mean the democrats/liberals
and wacko anti war types were wrong. They have ignored and covered up
evidence and committed treason to help the enemy of the US in wartime, we
treasure personal rights so much, we allow the Michael Moores of the world
to be traitors and to cheer on the enemy to put our soldiers into harms way,
rather than send him to Guantanamo Cuba to be with the other anti American
scum

Or the fact the UN security council even France/Germany said Iraq has
wmd

once upon a time ....

While the stupid peace protesters were whining and supporting
terrorists,
Iraq sent convoys of trucks into Syria, and Syria was found with wmd
months
later, again the liberal left refused to let that be known, keeping
the
loyal, ignorant left in the dark.

Another tale invented for the benefit of the stupid gullible right.
.

There is no proof, its not about facts or proof to the left. Its about some
socialist one world government, surrendering US soverignty to the United
Nations, rounding up all guns, abolishing the right to bear arms. The left
pushed hard, trying to elect Kerry with his one world government team.

The left wants the US to lose, they need the war to fail, they have covered
up every reported case of chemical weapons, they call Bush a liar when he
never lied at any time, the left says the Iraq prison abuse scandal was
torture but says nothing about what Saddam did

The whole thing about NO wmd? It was started by the humiliated,
discredited
liar and former weapons inspector Scott Ridder, who became a Saddam
loyalist
and gave up his US citizenship. He started the lie of no wmd in
Iraq,
despite weapons scientists who defected from Iraq and proved there
were.

And told a receptive audience of of US neocons exactly what the neocons
wanted to hear. Pity that your inspectors looking for real evidence
have given up and gone home empty-handed. It is difficult to understand
why you re-elected such a gullible bunch of nitwits - but I suppose
that is what representative democracy is all about.

Well you simply do not understand whats going on with this issue if you
believe the inspectors were sent to FIND weapons, they were sent to work
with a government who wishes to comply with the demand, and simply check the
documentation, property tags, maps, and whatever data that the cooperating
government has done what they claimed. It amounts to a Quality Assurance
process.

The IAEA leader guy, and Hans Blix were both on Saddams payroll directly or
indirectly, running defense for Saddam at every turn

Gullible nitwits? Maybe they are the very best the world has seen and your
understanding is jaded by the liberal mainstream media, the same one seeking
to install the tyrranical socialist government in the USA

But the DNC and the left jumped on the Ridder theme, every day on the
news
they would say no wmd. Even Clinton said there was enough wmd that
he
launched a military attack to protect the USA

Based on the truly crap intelligence that claimed that there might be -
they were wrong, and disinterested observers said so at the time.
Clinton was in no position to quiz the experts.

Funny double standard you validate, Clinton gets a pass; Richard Clarke
was demoted for incompetence in the Bush first term, and he is the goto guy
for democrats on all things related to national security. A demoted,
incompetent liar, hailed by the left as the true hero.

So the no wmd slogan? Its a traitorous, pro-terrorist mantra repeated
by the
ignorant.

Pity it happens to be true, isn't it.
-----------

No, it does not happen to be true. But the left doesnt want the truth, they
love terrorists and Saddam because they share the same hatred for America
and freedom

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bradley1234]

Science and atheism are mutually exclusive. For a person to deeply
appreciate science methods, to then hold the extremist notion there cannot
be a God? Is simply not logical and not scientific.

You cannot prove there is NO God, for as the logic goes, you would need to
have absolute knowledge of the entire universe and know everything and be
everywhere from the start of the universe until its ending, but if you had
such knowledge you would BE God.

Scientifically, the choices are: 1. God is God or 2. you dont know

To infer there IS NOT, is a form of irrational, unscientific delusion.



"not_keith" <not_keith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106851154.641703.99170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

As a Christian (and an Engineer, yes not ALL science orientated people
are atheists - we just cann't spell), I have to ask.... Have you
looked at the subject heading for this forum?

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:12:45 -0500, Charles Schuler wrote:

Show me an electron, I say!

Sure, just hook yourself up to 1,000 volts and then, if you survive, you can
ask additional questions.

Nuh-Uh!

I said, "one". ;-)

(well, actually, I said, "an", as anyone can see above, but that's not
what the kid said in the Bert Lahr potato chip commercials.)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:46:52 -0700, learner wrote:

In <pYKdnVQ8WOF_JWfcRVn-gw@comcast.com>, on 01/28/05
at 05:12 PM, "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> said:



Show me an electron, I say!

Sure, just hook yourself up to 1,000 volts and then, if you survive, you
can ask additional questions.

What good would that do? He still won't see any electrons, but he might
see God!

Seen him. All he is is undifferentiated Light. That's why he needs Us and
Mother to straighten Reality out, and cast out the Unlovingness.

http://www.godchannel.com

Love!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Charles Schuler wrote:

That's where I was headed above. So many people are quick to say that
science has "proven" xxxxxxx.

Not real scientists. In hard science, everything is subject to revision
which includes the possibility of the trash bin. This includes core
theories, such as the conservation of angular momentum (which, so far, has
held up amazingly well, even in quantum mechanics). To talk about science
does not make one a scientist.

I have no problem with matters of faith. I do have a problem with folks
citing science to support a belief system that is clearly not in the purvey
of science. Science is the only belief system that continues to make
progress. Since it was invented by humans, it is necessarily flawed but
clearly has demonstrated its prowess. Religion has caused more trouble,
wars, bias, and stupid mistakes than all other belief systems combined.

I'd have thought that "science" is less a "belief system" than a
procedure, or methodology. I.e., it's more like a verb than a noun. I
don't think I'd ever find occasion to capitalize "science". Or religion,
for that matter.

I believe in science, as long as I can say science means trying to find
out what's actually true, as far as one can determine.

Take, for example, crop circles.

Already, I can hear the two camps arming and digging trenches.

There's clearly spots in those fields. How did they get there? There are
a couple of guys who claim that they did them all, with a stick and a
piece of rope. This is plausible.

The true believers even reject that! That's just silly. I say, if it is
anything other than kids with sticks, then let's find out what it is!

The cattle mutilations, from what I've heard, are a little problematic.

But the point is, Science means investigation. Closed-mindedness is the
opposite of science, no matter which side you're on. There's _always_ room
for new information!

Cheers!
Rich

 

keith wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:56:58 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

snip

The other proof that these are all the same guy is that none of
them
has ever evidenced a shred of humor.

Not one that you seem to be equipped to appreciate ...

...and that repartee was somehow humorous? Oh, HaHaHa!

Nor you either .... odd. Oxford and Cambridge churn out comedians, but
none of the American universities has produced a decent comic since Tom
Lehrer. When I was writing revue scrips for the Melbourne University
Architects Revue, back in about 1967, one of the other writers was
killingly funny, but he shot himself a year later, which rather
blighted his career.

--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Noah Roberts]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

Its classic liberal thinking.

Damn, I thought I was out...I can't let this go.

http://www.cafepress.com/angryleft.16348448?zoom=yes#zoom

I am buying one from my next paycheck and it is to become my new
favorite sweatshirt. Scroll down to the image of the back...

 

[boer]

WayneL wrote:

Hi

I have read a paper on Fabrication of highly ordered metallic nanowire
arrays by electrodeposition by Yin a Brown University, US. See link for a
copy of the paper.
http://optonano.engin.brown.edu/Publications/APL01039.pdf

This paper discusses, among other things, the deposition of Bi and Ni to
produce nanowires.

Yin grew nickel and bismuth nano-wire using AC electrodeposition for
applications of high density recording devices and sensors. Yin used an AAO
(self-ordered anodised aluminium oxide) film as the cathode and a graphite
bar as the anode. He states that electrodeposition of metal into the porous
alumina film directly following anodisation can take place only under AC
conditions. Producing either Bi or Ni nano-wires required different
conditions.
Yin also found that the frequency range used also affected the results
produced. Another point worth noting is that high quality deposition of Ni
could be obtained with AC frequencies from 10 to 750 Hz and for Bi the
optimum frequency range was between 10 and 100 Hz. He commented that this
was probably due to the double layer. However, if the double layer is the
main factor dictating the frequency response then surely the frequency he
stated would be a function of the electrode size? Thus his figure are
arbitrary as they do not have any dimensional data. And if he did use the
same size electrodes for both Bi and Ni deposition why would the frequencies
be different? Surely the double layer capacitance is the same for both
metals or am I missing something here or is the double layer capacitance a
function of the metal's atomic number? One thing that is obvious is that
Bi(83) is significantly heavier than Ni (28).

Could somebody possible help clear this up for me.

Cheers

Wayne


The use of AC voltage is to overcome the barrier layer at the bottom of

the pores during the fabrication process, as stated in the paper. The
thinness/thickness of this non-porous layer presents a difficulty in DC
plating of the nanopores. This is *not* the double layer capacitance per
your post. The paper does discuss barrier thinning voltages compared to
older methods using dilute phosphoric acid etching to thin this physical
barrier layer. Yes, our lab did indeed find differences in AC plating
frequencies of nanopores dependent on the metal to be deposited.

boer

 

[Willem]

John wrote:
) On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:49:26 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
)<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
)>For most god believers they take the view that our consciousness could
)>not come about on its own. That consciousness is so amazing that it must
)>have been designed and built by someone else, of *greater*
)>consciousness. The obvious issue with that is that if one cant accept
)>that the fact of our own consciences requiring no help, how an earth can
)>one account for an even *greater* consciousness to exist? If one can
)>accept that a truly stupendous consciousness of a god can just exist,
)>surly is *easier* to accept that a lesser consciousness can just exist.
)
) ---
) If a consciousness like ours can spring up spontaneously, who's to say
) that a higher form of consciousness [which can be aware of us but
) which we can't be aware of] can't also? Kind of like we can pretty
) much figure out what's going on with an amoeba, but it hasn't got a
) clue about what's up with us. As above, so below.

You completely missed the point, which is that the argument 'life could not
have evolved spontaneously' is invalid.

Besides, according to most scientists, our conciousness hasn't sprung
up spontaneously, but has evolved over the eons. That would mean that
any higher form of conciousness could very well evolve from our own.
In other words, it is very well possible that Man created, or will
create God.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:02:26 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

I am LEAGUES above you, old shite.

---
Like a buzzard flying around at the end of a long tether?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:19:19 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

What'd yer fat ho mama do, besides not wiping you off, I mean.

---
Desperately grasping at straws, huh?

--
John Fields

 

[FPD Guy]

Commerically, only passive matrix OLED's are available -the type for a
tiny cell phone display or a lackluster car mp3 stereo display.

Samsung has recently shown prototypes of their 21" OLED display though
-the largest active matrix OLED yet produced. They're claiming a
contrast ratio of 5000:1 or something like that (it's alot easier to
get great contrast rate when you're not trying to shove 100,000+ nits
of CCFL backlight power through an "off" pixel to try & get your
blacks). It looks like they'll play with LG with the OLED's the same
as they have been with the Plasma's & LCD displays -each trying to
outdue each other at each upcoming trade show.

I've got a nice picture of Samsung's OLED up at http://www.fpdforum.com
in the OLED's section.

As far as flexible LCD's go, HP's been doing alot of research in that
area & has shown some prototypes, but nothing commerical as of yet.

I'll keep some updates on each of these at FPDforum.com for anyone that
wants to stop by & visit (feel free to post questions & comments on
displays til your hearts content).

-FPD Guy

Michael Noone wrote:

Hi - I was hoping to find a flexible LCD display, preferrably as thin
as
possible and equipped with a backlight. I need something maybe 2x4
inches,
graphic or text doesn't matter, and it would be awesome if it had a
controller chip so I don't have to deal with that nonsense. Does such
a
beast exist? Thanks!

-Michael Noone

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:54:00 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


Did you listen to, or even better read, his Inaugural address?

No- I cannot stand listening to that drawling brainless garbage for more
than a millisecond.



Really, you should read it. This guy is really in sync with history.

OK, I understand that he has faith in the perfectibility of humankind,
and you don't. What I don't understand is why you, and so many other
people, absolutely hate him for it. It's like you *want* the world to
remain mired in hate and oppression, that you really enjoy it that
way. Do you?


"History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a
visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of liberty."

Damn, that's a zinger.

John


Here is a more scholarly critique of that pile evangelical horse manure
you call a "zinger":

Published on Friday, January 21, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
The Rhetoric of Bush's Inaugural Address versus the Reality of Bush Policy
by Stephen Zunes

President Bush’s second inaugural address has received widespread praise
for its recognition of the imperative of advancing human freedom
worldwide, not just for its own sake, but for America’s own national
interest.

Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that the United States has long
been the number one military, diplomatic, and economic backer of the
world’s most repressive regimes,

That's silly. The world's most repressive regimes have been Nazi
Germany, the USSR, China, Cambodia, and North Korea, places that kill
you if they suspect that you're *thinking* wrong.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates are free and open
societies compared to the above.

The ultimate measure of freedom is: are you allowed to leave?

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace &
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

Dang, why am I not surprised?

John

 

[Noah Roberts]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I also object to you saying ignorant peasants invented god. It is
not
ignorant to believe in god.

Yes it is.

So you say...

Like get real. You truly believe that that is a credible solution?
Its
complete and utter nonsense.

'Like...' Like chill dude...

So you say...

All this is a statement on "I am f'ing clueless, with no idea how/why
we
exist so I'll just make it up as I go along".

So you say...

Smell the roses...Gods are absurd. Its that simply.

So you say...

At one time belief in bacteria and germs was also absurd, but people
still died from infections.

Oh...I do indeed have much expertise in various subjects.

You know everything, good for you. Nothing left to learn...that sucks.

I say pride comes before the fall...

And I guarantee they knew more about
survival.

This isn't one of my areas of expertise. Your point would be?

They were not ignorant.

The peasants you speak of knew "sod all" about religion. They went
to
church and listened to someone speak latin for a few hours. Then
they
went back to work living...God was stolen and kept from them.

Those that spoke latin were also "peasants".

Only some, the ones that chose that method of life. They were few and
far between, and eventually the followers set up methods of comfort for
themselves. It is still very rare to find someone willing to
voluntarily live that life.

No, most set themselves up in great comfort and sat in seats of great
power. Some were downright evil.

Of course by our standards of living most probably did live in poverty.
A few were rich beyond measure. But compared to those around them,
90% lived very comfortable lives.

I mean does gravity do now what

it did then?

Nope.

Hmmm...how does it act differently than before? You have me very
currious because I though gravity was a particular form of energy that
operates very predectably. I am unaware of any changes in its design.
Is gravity expected to change again any time soon?

Why should God's existance be any different?

Oh dear. It doesn't. "God" never done anything then, and he don't do
anything now. Now get this, god don't exist.

So you say. I don't see how your saying it makes it so...

Tell me, why don't you

believe in pixies, elves, Santa claus, Thor, Zeus. when you figure
that
out, you'll understand why this one god don't exist either.

First off, maybe I do; I can certainly dismiss many conceptions of
those things, but to deny categorically that they are possible...

Second there is a difference. I have evidence to the negative in the
existance of Santa Clause as described. The others could be existant
spiritual entities of some sort. I myself have evidence to the
existance of spiritual entities including God.

Show me some bloody evidence that this so called god done anything.

You call it the Big Bang theory.

Simply claiming that "god created Elvis" don't cut it. Produce the
dude
and lets see him do something.

If I could produce, or command god he wouldn't be god. You are just
being silly.

Yep. We now know that people invented god due to lack of information
as
to how we could possible have came about. Physics and biological
knowledge is now so extensive that we know the basic mechinisems
beyund
reasonable doubt.

Then I suppose you know what caused the Big Bang?

Did you read my post that The Big Bang theory supports Genesis and visa
versa?

That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and

*zero* actual evidence for an actual god. In addition, the evidence
we
have from physics, e.g. quantum mechanics shows that the universe is
inherently unpredictable, hence an all knowing god is extremely
unlikely.

Why would an all powerful being or its creations be predictable?

And no don't bring up the "we are just ignorant bit". It dont

wash.

Why? Do we know what caused the universe?

There is no formula for god. Nothing is testable about god in the
slightest.

To our current ability to test at least.

So we have two forces that exist independantly of human
interferance.

Nope. We have objective evidence on the effects of gravity. We have
no
evidence for a god.

_You_ don't.

We have *bishops* telling us that god did this, god says that, but
diddly squat for actual evidence of such claimed deeds. Any
"evidence"
that there is completely contradictory, www.evilbible.com.

Yes, priests and bishops are fallable, they are human. Yes, the bible
is fallable, it was written by humans...what does this have to do with
anything?

In both cases our understanding of them has changed. But we know a
lot more about gravity then we do God. God is a much bigger
subject
matter.

God contains no information at all.

Why would it?

Sort like Chi, it exists

Dream on.

Like God I have seen and felt the effects of Chi. Unlike God I have
controlled it. Unlike God it can be studied scientifically.

You are very limited intelectually. Everything you think you know has
blinded you. It is rather sad actually.

or not whether it is believed in or
not...though it is more effectivly channeled and is effects better
understood if it is believed in.

Complete hogwash.

So you say...so what?

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:18:17 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:
But he applied physical laws in his logic; his entire argument was
based on them. There is no way to argue logic if you are going to
be irrational.

No, the physics was immaterial. It was the logic that showed the
contradiction.

Ok, I can't tell if you guys are pulling my leg or if you really are
that slow...his argument against god's existance

No. My argument was that "an all powerful god" cannot exist.

Not inside your little box, no. There's no room for him in there.

But your little box is not All There Is, and you're just being a
stupid, pig-headed fool to continue to act as if you believe it is.

Wake up.

Or not, it's up to you. You do have Free Will, whether you accept it
or not.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Noah Roberts]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Complete and utter nonsense. Its based on *experimental* evidence.
Like,
never smoked a joint?

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NSintox.htm

"Psychedelic drugs provide some of the best evidence we have that the

mind is the brain; that our thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions are
created by chemistry."

I had to answer that argument when making the claim that choice exists
in basic philosophy. (Choice cannot exist through chemistry...if you
don't agree with this I will explain why, but I think you already
do...it is a rather obvious logical proof)

It goes beyond that. What about the mentally ill that can be 'fixed'
by medicine?

The answer is that 'I' am a being exerting force on a physical body,
which is quite obviously derivative of the definition of a spirit or
soul. If that body is broken my ability to exert pressure and get what
'I' want done is limited. It follows that by being contained by this
body allows it to exert pressure on me until I choose to disgard it or
it ceases to function at all. It then follows that I am also bound by
that which limits or alters that which contains me.

There are implication to this of course...what if the body dies before
'I' can leave it? Does the body then cause me to die as well? Or does
it simply stop holding that which it cannot support any longer.

This can also answer questions about why we cry when we are not in
physical pain. The body cannot deal with the whole power of what 'I'
am (yes, a rather romantic notion I grant you). There are other
examples to support this, the application chi is one. Of course you
have already suggested you do not believe in chi...but that doesn't
stop me from using it or manipulating it in another person.

Of course this is not a proof by itself, it is just an argument why the
conclusion does not follow the premise. If there is a soul contained
by a body such could be, and seemingly would have to be, the
interaction. So, to discount the existance of a soul you then have to
assume a soul does not exist or does not interact with the body, which
is either circular (doesn't exist) or incomplete (doesn't interact).

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
I also object to you saying ignorant peasants invented god. It is
not ignorant to believe in god.

Yes it is.

So you say...

Like get real. You truly believe that that is a credible solution?
Its
complete and utter nonsense.

'Like...' Like chill dude...

So you say...

Indeed I do. Explain why it aint so.

All this is a statement on "I am f'ing clueless, with no idea
how/why we exist so I'll just make it up as I go along".

So you say...

Smell the roses...Gods are absurd. Its that simply.

So you say...

Indeed I do. Explain why it aint so.

Tell, me why dont you belive in Thor?

At one time belief in bacteria and germs was also absurd, but people
still died from infections.

Oh dear, this same old pathetic argument.

Oh...I do indeed have much expertise in various subjects.

You know everything, good for you.

Nope, but I clearly know way more than you on these matters.

Nothing left to learn...that
sucks.

I say pride comes before the fall...

This was said way before you existed mate. Stop taking credit for the
works of others.

Why should God's existance be any different?

Oh dear. It doesn't. "God" never done anything then, and he don't do
anything now. Now get this, god don't exist.

So you say. I don't see how your saying it makes it so...

It doesn't. What makes it so is that there is zero evidence for god.
There *only* reason for the concept of god, is because someone said so.
No experiments, no observations, no rational reason whatsoever exits for
a god. It also contradicts all known science, so there are powerful
experimental reasons to dismiss such a daft idea.

Tell me, why don't you
believe in pixies, elves, Santa claus, Thor, Zeus. when you figure
that out, you'll understand why this one god don't exist either.

First off, maybe I do; I can certainly dismiss many conceptions of
those things, but to deny categorically that they are possible...

Second there is a difference. I have evidence to the negative in the
existance of Santa Clause as described.

Oh? produce such negative evidence. Then explain why such evidence cant
be applied to god.

The others could be existant
spiritual entities of some sort. I myself have evidence to the
existance of spiritual entities including God.

What does "spiritual entities" mean? Define them.

Show me some bloody evidence that this so called god done anything.

You call it the Big Bang theory.

Nope. The big bang has nothing to do with a god. No doubt you think that
a big bang is "evidence" of a god creating something, well it is also
"evidence" for pink unicorns creating the universe as well.

Here we go again, the "god of the gaps"

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

15,000 hits on goggle.

You aint even acquainted with the already extensive refutations of that
silly argument.

Simply claiming that "god created Elvis" don't cut it. Produce the
dude and lets see him do something.

If I could produce, or command god he wouldn't be god. You are just
being silly.

Oh dear... your serious arnt you. What an f'ing cop out. Sure, the god
meme is well constructed to prevent all attempts to eliminate it. If it
were not such a good meme, we wouldn't be observing it. Like, don't you
think its a bit suspicious that the god meme protects itself by cliaming
that god can't be observed?

Like how anyone can be so daft to not understand the relevance of:

"Hey, I can make myself invisible, but only if your back is turned to
me".

Wise up.

Yep. We now know that people invented god due to lack of information
as to how we could possible have came about. Physics and biological
knowledge is now so extensive that we know the basic mechinisems
beyund reasonable doubt.

Then I suppose you know what caused the Big Bang?

Oh dear.. here we go again, the god of the gaps.

Sure, science isn't complete, but to claim at every juncture where
science is apparently having a problem, that god did it, is ludicrous.

Did you read my post that The Big Bang theory supports Genesis and
visa versa?

No.

It supports Genesis in the same way as the existence of New York
supports the existence of Daredevil.

That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and
*zero* actual evidence for an actual god. In addition, the evidence
we
have from physics, e.g. quantum mechanics shows that the universe is
inherently unpredictable, hence an all knowing god is extremely
unlikely.

Why would an all powerful being or its creations be predictable?

The point is that QM strongly suggests that a god cannot be all knowing.
That is, a god that can predict everything, essentially means QM is
wrong. Considering the success of QM, this one is a tad hard to swallow.

And no don't bring up the "we are just ignorant bit". It dont
wash.

Why? Do we know what caused the universe?

What's you point, oh..its that "god of the gaps" thing again...

There is no formula for god. Nothing is testable about god in the
slightest.

To our current ability to test at least.

Oh dear, you are so far out to lunch its unreal. This is my last post on
this. Discussing this stuff with someone so ignorant as you is
worthless.

God will *never* be testable in physics. Its supernatual dah...

So we have two forces that exist independantly of human
interferance.

Nope. We have objective evidence on the effects of gravity. We have
no
evidence for a god.

_You_ don't.

No, no one does. Please present god.

We have *bishops* telling us that god did this, god says that, but
diddly squat for actual evidence of such claimed deeds. Any
"evidence"
that there is completely contradictory, www.evilbible.com.

Yes, priests and bishops are fallable, they are human. Yes, the bible
is fallable, it was written by humans...what does this have to do with
anything?

Oh dear... The Babble is the only "evidence" for god that exists.

In both cases our understanding of them has changed. But we know a
lot more about gravity then we do God. God is a much bigger
subject
matter.

God contains no information at all.

Why would it?

ROTFLMAO.

Sort like Chi, it exists

Dream on.

Like God I have seen and felt the effects of Chi. Unlike God I have
controlled it. Unlike God it can be studied scientifically.

Oh?

Hallucinating again I see.

You are very limited intelectually.

Even more ROTFLMAO.

Everything you think you know has
blinded you.

You don't know anything worthwhile. You simple believe something because
you were brought up to believe that way.

It is rather sad actually.

It is sad, truly sad that you are so deluded. It is your ignorance that
does not allow you to see just how much science explains the universe.
Science fallings are not evidence for a supernatural pompous git.

or not whether it is believed in or
not...though it is more effectivly channeled and is effects better
understood if it is believed in.

Complete hogwash.

So you say...so what?

Whatever. I've had enough.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.