Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

yuppers.

To your last line.  Ultimately, the universe made that salt packet.  That is an undeniable conclusion. 

well, unless we are light weights.

So Ouranos ... rather than Gaia.  Some ancient speculation (Shi'ur Qomah) ... said that the world was in fact a gigantic body, and we were fleas upon it.

[TheCloser]

is a rose not a rose by any other name? 

as you correctly point out, we just need to be a little careful how we grasp such a notion; as beautiful as it.

I am in awe of how smart they were back then, given what they didn't know.

[Baruch]

is a rose not a rose by any other name? 

as you correctly point out, we just need to be a little careful how we grasp such a notion; as beautiful as it.

I am in awe of how smart they were back then, given what they didn't know.

You don't need Seri or Cortana to be smart.  You just need to use the brains you are born with.  Everything you need to know today, was already known by cave men.  Anything since the Stone Age is nice, but not necessary for survival, in many cases it ends survival (nuclear weapons).

[TheCloser]

You don't need Seri or Cortana to be smart.  You just need to use the brains you are born with.  Everything you need to know today, was already known by cave men.  Anything since the Stone Age is nice, but not necessary for survival, in many cases it ends survival (nuclear weapons).

maybe.

They looked around, used what they knew, and made predictions.  That's good science.  Many top level physicists believe the universe knows how it is running and we are just pieces for the universe to experience itself.   I don't go that far, they assume a close system, but I also understand what I do not know.

To many people think that what they know is all anybody needs to know.  I don't understand why they won't listen and try to piece it together.  Oh well.

I might not be back for some time baruch, these boiz are light weights, you hang in there. 
Give me a shout if you recognize my writing.

[Blackleaf]

dude, your a light weight.
Be gone, like you promised.

Yeah, keep acting superior. We all know which of us has a leg to stand on. Hint: It's not the one who claims scientific evidence and then demands that his skeptics find the evidence.

[Cavebear]

Rocks don't have DNA.  That matters.

[Baruch]

Rocks don't have DNA.  That matters.

They have mineral crystals ... a superior life form (in some Star Trek episodes) ;-)

[Mike Cl]

maybe.

They looked around, used what they knew, and made predictions.  That's good science.  Many top level physicists believe the universe knows how it is running and we are just pieces for the universe to experience itself.   I don't go that far, they assume a close system, but I also understand what I do not know.

To many people think that what they know is all anybody needs to know.  I don't understand why they won't listen and try to piece it together.  Oh well.

I might not be back for some time baruch, these boiz are light weights, you hang in there. 
Give me a shout if you recognize my writing.

Hey, dude, don't hurry back.

[Unbeliever]

we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

No one can even define what it means to be alive:

Life's Working Definition: Does It Work?

But, definitions aside for now, I consider the universe to be alive merely because it engendered life. The universe contains life, and seems to me therefore to be alive.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, could you clarify it?

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations. 

In modern physics, even "nothing" is still full of stuff, such as fields, but no one really knows what those "are" either.

I don't quite get why it is that "something" must be believed in. I get along just fine believing in nothing at all. Hence, my moniker.

[Blackleaf]

Rocks don't have DNA.  That matters.

Well, some single-celled organisms don't have DNA either. Many believe that RNA predated DNA.

[Sorginak]

maybe.

They looked around, used what they knew, and made predictions.  That's good science.

Incorrect.

Good science uses hypothesis and then performs experiments. 

[fencerider]

some factions of spiritualism actually believe rocks are alive. Certain kinds of rocks have good spirits living in them that can benefit you, and others contain evil spirits that can negatively affect you if you keep them close to you too long.

When you talk about the biosphere being alive are you talking about an organism or a deist theory?

Here we are a bunch of believers in god argueing with non-believers in god about the existence of god. And the believers are argueing with each other about who has the correct concept of god. So if there are any real gods around, why aren't they showing up to straighten us out? I don't remember modesty being a characteristic of any god.

[Baruch]

In folk belief, amethyst was regarded as effective in preventing drunkenness.  It is ironical that materialists don't believe in such obvious magic ;-)

99% when the talk of G-d, are using a straw man argument, both theists and non-theists.  They also play games over what evidence is admissible or not.  Randy likes to use human judicial procedure for example.  Magic and G-d are matters of perception, not about Independence Day (god is an alien).

[Sorginak]

99% when the talk of G-d

Can you not properly spell "god"?

[Baruch]

Can you not properly spell "god"?

There is more than one way.  For example in Greek, Dios is one form of Zeus, reflecting the superior position of Zeus over the Olympian community.

I have used god, God and G-d.  The first is generic and not specifically monotheist.  The second is specifically monotheist, but not my own god.  G-d is how I spell my own god, who is a God.  Makes perfect sense, while avoiding confusion.  G-d is often used by Jews, though as a Jew, I am a freethinking heretic.