Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No, you said in your last post Yesterday bunky?. No you did not make any distinctions

If so, quote me your post from yesterday 8/23

Any moron would understand that the phrase "world system" is not talking about the physical universe or science. The 11-part series I did YEARS ago about the fundamental structure of the physical universe has no bearing on the most recent discussion about the Law of Distrust. Bringing in that old series into the discussion now is just another non sequitur of yours, which you excel at tossing into discussions for the purposes of obfuscation and distraction.

Anyhow...you've got some catching up to do before you graduate to moron level.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Except that atheists are fools.

Ad hominem! Been there before. You are getting that from a book whose authenticity cannot be proven. Therefore I could respond in kind and say that believers are fools.

[Buckeye]

Not really Actor, they are just beleivers.

I thought that was allowed but maybe you can correct me?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Any moron would understand that the phrase "world system" is not talking about the physical universe or science. The 11-part series I did YEARS ago about the fundamental structure of the physical universe has no bearing on the most recent discussion about the Law of Distrust. Bringing in that old series into the discussion now is just another non sequitur of yours, which you excel at tossing into discussions for the purposes of obfuscation and distraction.

Anyhow...you've got some catching up to do before you graduate to moron level.

More "tough love", ala Jesus...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

More "tough love", ala Jesus...

You'd rather have me lie to him? When a grown adult doesn't understand the differences in definitions between the term "world" and "universe", what other conclusion can be reached? Well...there is another option, of course. Hcap's non sequiturs are designed to take people down his rabbit holes. In this scenario, Hcap would be deceitful.

Pick your poison -- whatever you think fits him the best.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Any moron would understand that the phrase "world system" is not talking about the physical universe or science. The 11-part series I did YEARS ago about the fundamental structure of the physical universe has no bearing on the most recent discussion about the Law of Distrust. Bringing in that old series into the discussion now is just another non sequitur of yours, which you excel at tossing into discussions for the purposes of obfuscation and distraction.

Anyhow...you've got some catching up to do before you graduate to moron level.

There is no law of distrust, except in the colloquial sense. For example, Murphy's Law - Whatever can go wrong, will - is not an immutable law. It's an adage giving the description of futility.

How about the law of losing every photo finish? Or the law of it raining every time you're on a picnic?

I even made up a law that is copyrighted - The Law of Inverse Synergy. At the racetrack the crowd taken as a whole is right more often than single individuals. The best public handicappers pick at around 30%, while the crowd is around 35%. The inverse synergy applies to cases where the individual outfoxes the crowd by nailing a long price.

Of course the Law of Inverse Synergy is not a real law. It wasn't derived through study and experimentation. But it is at least a law as legitimate as the law of distrust.

Laws in science are immutable. For a reference see Newton's laws of thermodynamics.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

There is no law of distrust, except in the colloquial sense.

You need to get out in the world more often. (You must be one of hermits I mentioned.) Read my 172 in the original Religious thread and then get back to me an intelligent refutation if you can.

And you might want to brush up the real definition of "principle" which is also synonymous with "law".

And by the way, have you ever lied in your life and has anyone ever lied to you?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Not really Actor, they are just beleivers.

I thought that was allowed but maybe you can correct me?

Yes, that's allowed. My point is that if I were to respond in kind that would also be an ad hominem. And an ad hominem is no argument at all. It is just name calling.

My apologies if I offended anyone.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

When a grown adult doesn't understand the differences in definitions between the term "world" and "universe"

The American Heritage Dictionary gives several definitions of the word "world", one of which is "the universe".

Another definition of "world" is "the planet Earth". Yet another is "all of mankind".

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You need to get out in the world more often. (You must be one of hermits I mentioned.) Read my 172 in the original Religious thread and then get back to me an intelligent refutation if you can.

You aren't even close here. I would find it hard to believe you've traveled domestically and internationally more than I have, or interacted with more people from both domestic parties and a number of foreign parties. That should shut you up about me being a hermit. I wrote original books (or sections of books) instead of just plagiarizing as you are infamous for. I've had dozens - maybe even hundreds - of articles published, many in highly reputable journals. Can't do that when you don't come out of your cave.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you might want to brush up the real definition of "principle" which is also synonymous with "law".

They are not synonymous. Go to Roget's and type in principle. Your command of the language has always been pathetic. I only wish I had a chance to debate you in person, with a vote by an audience to determine the winner. Custer had a better chance of winning than you would.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And by the way, have you ever lied in your life and has anyone ever lied to you?

Dumb question. Find me a human who hasn't.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Any moron would understand that the phrase "world system" is not talking about the physical universe or science. The 11-part series I did YEARS ago about the fundamental structure of the physical universe has no bearing on the most recent discussion about the Law of Distrust. Bringing in that old series into the discussion now is just another non sequitur of yours, which you excel at tossing into discussions for the purposes of obfuscation and distraction.

Anyhow...you've got some catching up to do before you graduate to moron level.

Any moron would remember their "proclamations" from on high from the day before. You don't even qualify for that. We are DISCUSSING the scientific analysis of your proclamations and you can't even piece together what you said a few sentences back of your own silliness. Maybe you should keep extensive notes. Write it down on your palms like a "cheat sheet? Dictate it into a tape recorder?

You are a dent deflector of the topic at hand though

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Any moron would remember their "proclamations" from on high from the day before. You don't even qualify for that. We are DISCUSSING the scientific analysis of your proclamations and you can't even piece together what you said a few sentences back of your own silliness. Maybe you should keep extensive notes. Write it down on your palms like a "cheat sheet? Dictate it into a tape recorder?

You are a dent deflector of the topic at hand though

What "scientific analysis" of the Law of Distrust are you talking about?

And why did you bring my old 11-part series that dealt with the fundamental structure of the universe into this Law of Distrust discussion? What does one have to do with the other?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You aren't even close here. I would find it hard to believe you've traveled domestically and internationally more than I have, or interacted with more people from both domestic parties and a number of foreign parties. That should shut you up about me being a hermit. I wrote original books (or sections of books) instead of just plagiarizing as you are infamous for. I've had dozens - maybe even hundreds - of articles published, many in highly reputable journals. Can't do that when you don't come out of your cave.

Your incredulity or reluctance to believe the obvious led me to believe you don't get out much.

They are not synonymous. Go to Roget's and type in principle. Your command of the language has always been pathetic. I only wish I had a chance to debate you in person, with a vote by an audience to determine the winner. Custer had a better chance of winning than you would.

Really? Not according to my Funk 'n' Wagnall. Go back and read my 8029 to Hcap. I had to educate him, too.

Dumb question. Find me a human who hasn't.

What a relief. I thought you'd claim that lying is beneath your dignity and boast that you walk on water like Jesus. But thanks for your moment of honesty. It is duly noted and appreciated at this desk.

And I'd take it that you would offer the same kind of answer to the other question I asked about being lied to by someone?

In other words, Mr. Halv, from your answer, could we not safely infer from you own experience in this world and doubtlessly from everyone else's as well (maybe except for Hcap's) that lying, in one form or another, is a universal human behavior that is universally experienced by everyone?.
In fact, could we not say that this universal behavior is an expression of the law of sin (Rom 7:23,25; 8:2)?

And would you say that all this lying in the world that we do and that others do to us engenders trust or distrust, generally?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What "scientific analysis" of the Law of Distrust are you talking about?

And why did you bring my old 11-part series that dealt with the fundamental structure of the universe into this Law of Distrust discussion? What does one have to do with the other?

Not only are you losing it, you are gone.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Not only are you losing it, you are gone.

Your projection of your own miserable failings rival only your persistent use of non squiturs in discussions.