So what does happen when you die?

[Cliffy]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, true. It is my considered opinion that science has its limitations and so does philosophy, religion and spirituality. It does not mean that one is less or better and I think we would come to some conclusions sooner if they all worked together. To say that science is the end all and be all is to deny the validity of most of the world's population. I say science has limitations because its methodology is not conducive to spiritual matters.

What makes the human mind unique is its ability to dream, wonder, speculate and imagine. But the reductive method of dissecting whole organisms down its parts to figure out how something works is very limiting. Just because science can't prove something today, doesn't mean that it won't expand its views and methodology in the future and find answers that escape us today. To deny the validity all other avenues of exploration into the human mind is akin to the war between Christians and Muslims. It is destructive and non-productive.

I think about Jules Verne at times like these and how his vision and imagination came up with space travel and undersea exploration long before we were capable of doing those things. And I see the potential of the human imagination to create a future when all our questions and speculations will be manifest just like Verne's submarine. We will never know all the answers because the questions are too big, too infinite. But we might some day figure out our part in it.

 

[JLM]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, true. It is my considered opinion that science has its limitations and so does philosophy, religion and spirituality. It does not mean that one is less or better and I think we would come to some conclusions sooner if they all worked together. To say that science is the end all and be all is to deny the validity of most of the world's population. I say science has limitations because its methodology is not conducive to spiritual matters.

What makes the human mind unique is its ability to dream, wonder, speculate and imagine. But the reductive method of dissecting whole organisms down its parts to figure out how something works is very limiting. Just because science can't prove something today, doesn't mean that it won't expand its views and methodology in the future and find answers that escape us today. To deny the validity all other avenues of exploration into the human mind is akin to the war between Christians and Muslims. It is destructive and non-productive.

I think about Jules Verne at times like these and how his vision and imagination came up with space travel and undersea exploration long before we were capable of doing those things. And I see the potential of the human imagination to create a future when all our questions and speculations will be manifest just like Verne's submarine. We will never know all the answers because the questions are too big, too infinite. But we might some day figure out our part in it.

Right on again Cliff. Two hundred years ago who would have thunk we could flick a switch and a whole room would light up?

 

[darkbeaver]

What, stupidity shouldn't be pointed out?........ and I don't give a rats ass how old she is, it doesn't give her a pass.

You are obliged to respect your elders by your contract with God.

 

[JLM]

You are obliged to respect your elders by your contract with God.

Yep, "honour thy father and mother"- and by extention their generation. :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

there is no proof that there is any 'big guy'. Show me where to find the proof, tell me where to look.
Show me some pictures. Show me the 'big guy'. What is his/her address, phone number, area code.

Cloud 9 ?

While there is no proof of "a big guy" that is true but there is nothing but proof of the organized nature of the universe and that organization certainly bespeaks omnipotence of nature. So while you are blessed with an affinity for gardening I do not imagine that you suppose that you, in isolation from that omnipotence, work the green magic. God is undefinable because god is the superior of man by such a very very huge gulf. The traditional representations of god leave much to be desired designed as they were for vulgar crowd control alone. I hope that gives you some peace of mind with respect to the god question. If you have any further misgivings you may submit your inquireys via prayer to DB Eaver Earth Agent General for God. She loves me.

Yep, "honour thy father and mother"- and by extention their generation. :lol:

If you don't love and respect geezers you ain't a real christian, I rekon.

 

[Cliffy]

While there is no proof of "a big guy" that is true but there is nothing but proof of the organized nature of the universe and that organization certainly bespeaks omnipotence of nature. So while you are blessed with an affinity for gardening I do not imagine that you suppose that you, in isolation from that omnipotence, work the green magic. God is undefinable because god is the superior of man by such a very very huge gulf. The traditional representations of god leave much to be desired designed as they were for vulgar crowd control alone. I hope that gives you some peace of mind with respect to the god question. If you have any further misgivings you may submit your inquireys via prayer to DB Eaver Earth Agent General for God. She loves me.

If you don't love and respect geezers you ain't a real christian, I rekon.

Is da Beav getting of geezer age too?

I was standing in line, last summer, at a gathering of indigenous people waiting to get my supper when a young buck came up to me an said that I looked like an elder to him and that I should go up to the front of the line. I looked at him and wondered, "how did that happen?" Didn't stop me from going to the front of the line though, as my hip was hurting something fierce.

 

[darkbeaver]

Is da Beav getting of geezer age too?

I was standing in line, last summer, at a gathering of indigenous people waiting to get my supper when a young buck came up to me an said that I looked like an elder to him and that I should go up to the front of the line. I looked at him and wondered, "how did that happen?" Didn't stop me from going to the front of the line though, as my hip was hurting something fierce.

Yes I am a geezer. All my protestations have come to naught, my mirror is merciless. I am finally resigned to enjoy my biological deterioration in a graceful dignified manner. The world needs many more young bucks like that.

 

[JLM]

Yes I am a geezer. All my protestations have come to naught, my mirror is merciless. I am finally resigned to enjoy my biological deterioration in a graceful dignified manner. The world needs many more young bucks like that.[/QUOTE]

I agree, count me in. :smile:

 

[talloola]

While there is no proof of "a big guy" that is true but there is nothing but proof of the organized nature of the universe and that organization certainly bespeaks omnipotence of nature. So while you are blessed with an affinity for gardening I do not imagine that you suppose that you, in isolation from that omnipotence, work the green magic. God is undefinable because god is the superior of man by such a very very huge gulf. The traditional representations of god leave much to be desired designed as they were for vulgar crowd control alone. I hope that gives you some peace of mind with respect to the god question. If you have any further misgivings you may submit your inquireys via prayer to DB Eaver Earth Agent General for God. She loves me.

___________________________________________________________________________________


I'll write that address down, thanks. (any idea what stamp I need, don't want to get it back) lol

I have no spiritual connection, as to why my garden grows, but scientifically, it makes sense to me.

I'll let you if I get any reply. lol

the explanations and opinions that dexter puts on this forum makes so much sense to me, and I totally
follow his path, and I appreciate that he does come here because I need that. Of course I don't have
his learning, but I am happy to know 'he' does, and that he also has studied the 'religious' side of
these matters as well, and all that he explains is so 'clear' and fits so well.

Of course we don't know everything, but that does not leave me to think that 'what' we don't know must
be connected to any godly source, I stopped believing all of that at about 12 years old, and happy that
I did.

Science is discoveries and proof, I need that, and what we don't know, we don't know, 'yet'.

 

[gerryh]

Science is discoveries and proof, I need that, and what we don't know, we don't know, 'yet'.

bullshyte.


I'll elaborate on this, even though I have before, and you and dexter have both not understood because of your closed mindedness.

Both you and dexter require as much if not MORE faith to believe in "science" alone than I do with my Faith. You both are willing to take scientists word for things that you do NOT understand because of their education and supposed knowledge in their field.

It's not possible for an individual to know everything so you take others words for how things are based on their "research". You have FAITH in the process and the knowledge of others.

 

[darkbeaver]

___________________________________________________________________________________


I'll write that address down, thanks. (any idea what stamp I need, don't want to get it back) lol

I have no spiritual connection, as to why my garden grows, but scientifically, it makes sense to me.

I'll let you if I get any reply. lol

the explanations and opinions that dexter puts on this forum makes so much sense to me, and I totally
follow his path, and I appreciate that he does come here because I need that. Of course I don't have
his learning, but I am happy to know 'he' does, and that he also has studied the 'religious' side of
these matters as well, and all that he explains is so 'clear' and fits so well.

Of course we don't know everything, but that does not leave me to think that 'what' we don't know must
be connected to any godly source, I stopped believing all of that at about 12 years old, and happy that
I did.

Science is discoveries and proof, I need that, and what we don't know, we don't know, 'yet'.

Science is only the religion of materialists and as such completely subservient to the human senses of spirit. Science is merely a garden tool.

Dexter the demon, beware of geeks bearing gifts.

 

[petros]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, true. It is my considered opinion that science has its limitations and so does philosophy, religion and spirituality. It does not mean that one is less or better and I think we would come to some conclusions sooner if they all worked together. To say that science is the end all and be all is to deny the validity of most of the world's population. I say science has limitations because its methodology is not conducive to spiritual matters.

Read up on real al khemy. You'll be pleasently surprised.

 

[darkbeaver]

Sure, all physics since Maxwell produced the first unified field theory is wrong, despite its astounding and unprecedented accuracy it's just calculating tricks. You're still reading the wrong stuff, and you're not qualified to judge it anyway. If you were you'd know that a fairly simple application of Maxwell's equations gives the lie to the electric cosmos. I showed it to you, remember?

A Real 'Theory of Everything'
What is the nature of light? Einstein's special theory of relativity was disconfirmed right at the start by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed a residual due to the æther. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller. But by then popular delusion and the madness of crowds had taken hold and contrary evidence would not be tolerated. The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing. So Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium, the æther.

In Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter. The ‘universal constant of gravitation,’ G, is neither universal nor constant since it includes the mathematical dimension of mass, which is an electromagnetic variable. In the powerful magnetic field of a plasmoid, charged particles are constrained to accelerate continuously in the complex pattern of the plasmoid. Like electrons and protons in particle accelerators on Earth, the apparent masses of those particles become enormous as they approach the speed of light. So to report that the object at the center of the galaxy has the mass of 4 million Suns is meaningless in terms of the amount of matter trapped there electromagnetically. The matter there is not constrained by gravity, nor is it there as a result of gravitational accretion. Maxwell’s laws apply at the Galactic Center, not Newton’s.


You could only invoke Maxwell in your attempt to discredit me if you did not know what Maxwell thought.
You are over inflating my already sufficiently inflated ego by lowering yourself to comment on my obvious (to you) great lengths of shortcomings. Your comment is appreciated. I will discuss it with your physician perhaps we can cancel your lobotomy.

 

[Unforgiven]

You continue to dig yourself deeper, IGNORAMUS, Cliff raised the issue, NOT YOU, he mentioned the resemblance to "Duncan Dam" and you like a daft retard (that you are) assumed he was talking about a lake near Duncan, well, I can assure you there are no major damns anywhere near Duncan- there's 3 or 4 relatively small lakes Somenos Lake, Quamichan Lake, Rogers (Dougans) Lake, Fuller Lake.....................so you obviously drove through Duncan once and think you know everything about it ...................TARD. :roll:

Well when you're right your right. No I have never lived in Duncan. I have been there a few times to see the totems and then as a stop off for a bite to eat on the way else where. Of the two lakes I know of in the area, I assumed Cliff was talking about one of them. Not Fire Lake in the Azores though which have a couple of similar aspects to the lake in Duncan. You are correct about me no knowing the intimate history of the two lakes, how they were created and when geologically they became lakes. Just put Cliff's B.C. location and my awareness of Duncan V.I. together to assume that this is what he meant. Dam, lake, hollow, gully, bog, whatever sometimes a lake is just a lake. Not that it's a huge deal at all, other than you finding a small inconsistency and looking to get one in on me. Fair enough, I can take it as well as dish it out so not big deal.

Final analysis though they look a little bit alike in a way, they aren't the same lake. That Cliff was referring to Duncan Dam, as opposed to a dam in Duncan as I assumed, I stand corrected. You were right.

 

[darkbeaver]

 

[JLM]

Well when you're right your right. No I have never lived in Duncan. I have been there a few times to see the totems and then as a stop off for a bite to eat on the way else where. Of the two lakes I know of in the area, I assumed Cliff was talking about one of them. Not Fire Lake in the Azores though which have a couple of similar aspects to the lake in Duncan. You are correct about me no knowing the intimate history of the two lakes, how they were created and when geologically they became lakes. Just put Cliff's B.C. location and my awareness of Duncan V.I. together to assume that this is what he meant. Dam, lake, hollow, gully, bog, whatever sometimes a lake is just a lake. Not that it's a huge deal at all, other than you finding a small inconsistency and looking to get one in on me. Fair enough, I can take it as well as dish it out so not big deal.

Final analysis though they look a little bit alike in a way, they aren't the same lake. That Cliff was referring to Duncan Dam, as opposed to a dam in Duncan as I assumed, I stand corrected. You were right.

No problem- I thought I pointed out the discrepancy nicely. :smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What is the nature of light? Einstein's special theory of relativity was disconfirmed right at the start by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed a residual due to the æther. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller.

That's fairly typical of you and your non-scientist friends at Thunderbolts and Holoscience. Miller is the only one who ever got positive results from the interferometry experiment, and even so, they were too small to be consistent with the aether theories. His results were a small statistical artifact of his 200,000 or so attempts, that's all. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[darkbeaver]

The New Fundamentalism

 

[petros]

They sound Rosicrusion.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's fairly typical of you and your non-scientist friends at Thunderbolts and Holoscience. Miller is the only one who ever got positive results from the interferometry experiment, and even so, they were too small to be consistent with the aether theories. His results were a small statistical artifact of his 200,000 or so attempts, that's all. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

All of those people have the credentials and the tools enabling them to work on the very cusp of pure physics. You however seem unable to realize that all you have is a constant escape to authority and consensus and not a shread of anything that might be considered verification of your rote implanted dogma. You sir are a common garden variety materialist. The aether is not a theory while it conducts waves, it is concrete and unarguably observable.