Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You ran out of excuses and cop outs. You are a bold faced liar ensnared by your own ignorance. I gave you enough rope and well you hung yourself in broad daylight.

It's you who has run out of answers. You have none. First, you have the used time of the Past passing through the Present to be used a second time! Nothing like a good little greenie doing some recycling, heh?

And since you have our Yesterdays flowing through our Todays, there can be no Tomorrows because the Yesterdays' are constantly pushing back against the Tomorrows making them recede father and farther back into the Future.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you know that? How do you know that they even existed? How do you know that the text you quoted is not a work of fiction?

Why would you believe they didn't exist? Did non-existent people write the scriptures, too?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The sun appears on the horizon. It was the people who wrote your book who believed it was the sun that was moving. Thus, it was the sun that rose and the colloquialism stuck. Despite threats from the Catholic Church, SCIENCE from Galileo and Copernicus refuted what religious zealots believed.

We've accepted use of the terms sunrise and sunset, but you have to concede they are colloquialisms, not accurate science.

You're a smart guy, Halv. Don't buy scientific myth handed down as fact nonsense. The objections to heliocentrism were entrenched well into the 17th century...

A careful examination of the evidence shows that the modern fable that is most people's understanding of the Affair bears little resemblance to historical fact..."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-mo...storical-event

For more from atheist Tim O'Neill...

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/

From Thony Christie...

"...On the face of it, the heliocentric cosmology was absurd from a common-sensical and a physical point of view. Thinkers had grown up on the Aristotelian division between the heavens and the earthly region, between perfection and corruption. In Aristotle's physics, bodies moved to their natural places. Stones fell because the natural place of heavy bodies was the center of the universe, and that was why the Earth was there. Accepting Copernicus's system meant abandoning Aristotelian physics. How would birds find their nest again after they had flown from them? Why does a stone thrown up come straight down if the Earth underneath it is rotating rapidly to the east? Since bodies can only have one sort of motion at a time, how can the Earth have several? And if the Earth is a planet, why should it be the only planet with a moon?

For astronomical purposes, astronomers always assumed that the Earth is as a point with respect to the heavens. Only in the case of the Moon could one notice a parallactic displacement (about 1°) with respect to the fixed stars during its (i.e., the Earth's) diurnal motion. In Copernican astronomy one now had to assume that the orbit of the Earth was as a point with respect to the fixed stars, and because the fixed stars did not reflect the Earth's annual motion by showing an annual parallax, the sphere of the fixed stars had to be immense. What was the purpose of such a large space between the region of Saturn and that of the fixed stars?

These and others were objections that needed answers. The Copernican system simply did not fit into the Aristotelian way of thinking. It took a century and a half for a new physics to be devised to undegird heliocentric astronomy..."

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories...an_system.html

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Aside.../dp/0268029881

More from history of science blogger Thony Christie...

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2018/02...s-strawmaning/

Or consider a monthly play-by-play from Mike Flynn...

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/...own-great.html

...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How specific do you want me to get? I have very clearly and unequivocally stated that effects often precede causes in the course of human activity. What part of this isn't specific enough for you!?

I told you many times, I need a specific case for evidence. There is no way a general statement can be tested. A specific case can weed out your propencity to lie and distract.

But hey, you have ruled out events as a measure of time. TOTAL unmitigated BULLSHIT! Now you will never be able to use a specific practical example. Just repeat total nonsense ad infinitum.

Either provide evidence to be tested, or ST*U

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's you who has run out of answers. You have none. First, you have the used time of the Past passing through the Present to be used a second time! Nothing like a good little greenie doing some recycling, heh

Before you can say time is "used", you must define time. You evidently don't like me calling your bullshit time........ phlogiston

With your latest claim that time does not include events, don't see how.

The Phlogiston theory makes more sense then your latest nonsense.
Look at it this way, you fit the century, it first was proposed, the 17th

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You're a smart guy, Halv. Don't buy scientific myth handed down as fact nonsense. The objections to heliocentrism were entrenched well into the 17th century...

A careful examination of the evidence shows that the modern fable that is most people's understanding of the Affair bears little resemblance to historical fact..."

You're a smart guy, Doc, the element of the Copernican heliocentrism that is importasnt, is not the earath revolving around the sun, but the eath's ROTATION ON IT'S AXIS. Your pal boxcar is confusing the sun "rising" with the earth spinning.

Boxcar is no Copernicus or Galileo of time.This is not a religious battle between a 17th century primitive scientific Church(s) and the birth of heliocentrism. It existed, and did occur in varying degrees....

A Brief Note on Religious Objections to Copernicus:

I get asked about this a great deal, in large measure because the common lore is that the Catholic Church immediately condemned Copernicus and his system, while enlightened Protestants eagerly embraced both. In fact, the response from the leading Protestant theologians of Copernicus' time was swift and negative, though even this response was mostly remarks in passing in conversation or sermons, nothing resembling an organized anti-Copernican campaign. The Catholic Church, despite later official hostility, was largely silent at first. Silence, however, does not necessarily imply approval, as the events of the following century were to so forcefully prove.

Boxcar is a throwback to WAY before the 17th century in many ways. Specifically when it comes to time, space and matter

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I told you many times, I need a specific case for evidence. There is no way a general statement can be tested. A specific case can weed out your propencity to lie and distract.

But hey, you have ruled out events as a measure of time. TOTAL unmitigated BULLSHIT! Now you will never be able to use a specific practical example. Just repeat total nonsense ad infinitum.

Either provide evidence to be tested, or ST*U

You don't play poker very much, do you? You want me to actually reveal how effects can often precede causes in the course of every day human activities, and then you'll take my bet? Doesn't work that way in the real world, Humpty. But then again...what you know about the real world wouldn't amount to a drop inside a thimble.

Take my bet, Mr. Chicken, and then you'll find out how.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Before you can say time is "used", you must define time. You evidently don't like me calling your bullshit time........ phlogiston

With your latest claim that time does not include events, don't see how.

The Phlogiston theory makes more sense then your latest nonsense.
Look at it this way, you fit the century, it first was proposed, the 17th

I have defined Time. You need to go back and read my post in the 11-part series of the universe that I wrote back in January '05.

And the whole world knows that every single human being uses Time. As said recently, the entire productive world gets paid for its Time! Time is spent, used, wasted or invested. And any of these can only be done in the Present. Time gets spent, used, wasted or invested only in Present because it's only in the Present that Phenomena touches our senses that enables us to live, work and survive in this world.

So, Humpty, it's not logically possible to have the used Time of the Past pass through the portal of the Present to be used again.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't play poker very much, do you? You want me to actually reveal how effects can often precede causes in the course of every day human activities, and then you'll take my bet? Doesn't work that way in the real world, Humpty. But then again...what you know about the real world wouldn't amount to a drop inside a thimble.

Take my bet, Mr. Chicken, and then you'll find out how.

Same shit.Answer these:

1) is your bet about a specific testable PRACTICAL example showing effect before cause?

2)As I said PA will not sanction a cash bet. Therefore will you leave this thread forever if I show exactly how shoddy you are by devastating your contention? If I am wrong I will leave.

3)Who will judge?

4)You mist use events, as there is no other way possible to test timne

If not, no bet.

Why don't you just tell me and I will devastate you, bet or no bet in any case

Poker has rules bunky. No making up rules, definitions, or using general statements or word game self defining circular "proclamations", without being testable.

In clearly expressed in English, no boxcaraian.

You are the chicken.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Same shit.Answer these:

1) is your bet about a specific testable PRACTICAL example showing effect before cause?

2)As I said PA will not sanction a cash bet. Therefore will you leave this thread forever if I show exactly how shoddy you are by devastating your contention? If I am wrong I will leave.

3)Who will judge?

4)You mist use events, as there is no other way possible to test timne

If not, no bet.

Why don't you just tell me and I will devastate you, bet or no bet in any case

Poker has rules bunky. No making up rules, definitions, or using general statements or word game self defining circular "proclamations", without being testable.

In clearly expressed in English, no boxcaraian.

You are the chicken.

You couldn't "devastate" yourself out of a wet paper bag if you spent all your remaining time here on earth trying.

Hey, maybe PA will want part of your action, this way both of you will lose and leave this thread forever.

Judges? Won't need any because the facts will be self-evident. The operative term here is self-evident. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Doc and/or ShowMe already know the answer.) In other words, Humpty, the truth that effects can often precede causes in the every day course of human activities is hiding right now in plain sight.

Now...an "event" is something that happens, right? You agree that it is something that occurs, just as activity is? And don't forget: The bet is that effects can precede causes in time during the course of everyday human activities.

Take my bet, Mr. Yellow. When you lose, you tell us if you raised your young kids to believe that they should implicitly trust all strangers they meet.

If I lose, I stay off this thread for one year.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now...an "event" is something that happens, right? You agree that it is something that occurs, just as activity is? And don't forget: The bet is that effects can precede causes in time during the course of everyday human activities.

Take my bet, Mr. Yellow. When you lose, you tell us if you raised your young kids to believe that they should implicitly trust all strangers they meet.

There can be no measurement, definition, or meaningful discussion of time without "events"

Therefore if you have one where effect precedes cause don't be a coward. POST IT.

You loose you leave. If I loose I leave.

There is one thing however that FYI is a condition that influences humans to act (effect) before a possible certainty (cause). Our predictive abilities. Which we learn from past events, or the previous correlation of past causes and effects IN THAT ORDER!

Also animals may "sense" a future cause like a tornado or other natural disaster and act. However the actual reason they sense storms, while once unknown was as birds migrating and then found out as natural sensing of magnetic fields, involves some degree of instintual knowledge.

I will not accept that as a clear practical example of effect preceding cause. Too complex. Evolution instilled instinctual correlations of behavior that favored survival adapting to billions of years of past events.
.................................................. ....................

If you are too afraid to stick to my ground rules, I have another bet for you. You loose you leave. I loose I leave.
My bet is you cannot describe time without events. Saying time includes events still uses events bunky.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

There can be no measurement, definition, or meaningful discussion of time without "events"

Therefore if you have one where effect precedes cause don't be a coward. POST IT.

You loose you leave. If I loose I leave.

There is one thing however that FYI is a condition that influences humans to act (effect) before a possible certainty (cause). Our predictive abilities. Which we learn from past events, or the previous correlation of past causes and effects IN THAT ORDER!

Also animals may "sense" a future cause like a tornado or other natural disaster and act. However the actual reason they sense storms, while once unknown was as birds migrating and then found out as natural sensing of magnetic fields, involves some degree of instintual knowledge.

I will not accept that as a clear practical example of effect preceding cause. Too complex. Evolution instilled instinctual correlations of behavior that favored survival adapting to billions of years of past events.
.................................................. ....................

If you are too afraid to stick to my ground rules, I have another bet for you. You loose you leave. I loose I leave.
My bet is you cannot describe time without events. Saying time includes events still uses events bunky.

Take my bet and I'll post it.

And, no, the terms are what I stated. I leave for one year if I lose. If you lose, you must tell us if you taught your kids to implicitly trust strangers when they were growing up.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Take my bet and I'll post it.

And, no, the terms are what I stated. I leave for one year if I lose. If you lose, you must tell us if you taught your kids to implicitly trust strangers when they were growing up.

Bullshit. I told you many times my kids are not open to a childless misogynist and child hater like you to discuss. And your absurd "law of mistrust" is just another excuse for you to post pages of nonsense.

You loose you leave. If I loose I leave.

What about a judge?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Bullshit. I told you many times my kids are not open to a childless misogynist and child hater like you to discuss. And your absurd "law of mistrust" is just another excuse for you to post pages of nonsense.

You loose you leave. If I loose I leave.

What about a judge?

Stop hiding behind your kids, you coward. Your children would be the subject of discussion, but their daddy would be and your parental guidance, wisdom and discretion would certainly open for discussion.

And, no, you leaving wouldn't be any skin off your nose but public scrutiny of your parental skills certainly would be -- either that or your hypocrisy, since you deny the existence of the Law of Distrust on one hand but then we come to find out that you counseled your kids to never trust strangers. That would put you in an uncomfortable position. Just as uncomfortable and awkward if you lie to us and tell us that you counseled your children to always trust everyone.

You gotta have skin in the game, 'cappy, just as I would by leaving for one year, if I were to lose.

Judge? Don't need no stinkin' judge because what I would reveal would be self-evident.

[hcap]

On second thought in order to end this.........

Go ahead post it. I will discuss how to treat all kids, not only mine.

And I and everyone else, will know if you lived up to the ground rules of the bet, without a judge.

Maybe this is the only way to shut you up.

Post away bunky