Right and wrong is determined by God

Your dishonest contriving of my point is duly noted.

I confess to a profound indebtedness for receipt of this immaculate truth

More dishonest contriving. We're approaching theistic logic here.

There's something almost biblical about your claim, as if it were handed down from the mount, inviolate, implacable, immutable. That's pure theist argument.

Unfortunately you blotted your book before this denial.

But I'll agree that assertion is in truth pure theist codswallop.

Is this your best thinking?

OriginalBiggles, Prime


I must suspect this isn't your best. It seems extremely less than your posts I read prior to this particular issue.
Speaking of babbling. None of that is appropriate & it certainly points more to you being the almighty unquestionable authority.
Again I must ask someone : WHAT the frigging hell is wrong with you? You 're making as much personal attack as you are attempting to debate the issue.
That childish crap undermines any point you may have or think you have.
I've given no reason for you to even suspect I'm dishonest, much less for you to call me such.
Work out your problem before responding.
 
You babble incoherently yet say I made a stupid comment.
There was no answer to like.
You should answer the frigging question.
what frigging question

Personal insults undermine your proposition. Or it would if you had a proposition.

Is this the stupid comment :
from you; no

what question?

as for mass energy time (MET): does everything in existence work from these?

do the rules apply throughout the universe? (of the three interelating)

if the 'good' of life lives longer; it is a good measuring stick?

now frigging strange, answer the questions and post your DIRECT question(s)
 
bishadi,

Please explain the problem you have with your posts.
i don't have any

i have few problems with my posts

what is funny, is who is asking questions coherantly, that can be addressed?

They are largely unintelligible and with very poor English. We are left to attempt to guess what you might mean.
the english and every word used, is good; the folks reading do not comprehend because the 'paradigm' (principles) of the basis are not being observed by the reading parties.

name an item that is not understood based on poor english?

There are times when you almost form a meaningful sentence but never quite make it. Is this because English is not your primary language or are you writing gibberish deliberatley?
nothing deliberate except the ToE (math) combining the three is not being posted (because them 'principle' concepts, even in english are not comprehended by many on the forum (the globe).

it is not my lack of english but the body of participants do not have enough material knowledge to comprehend the underlying principles (the ideology.)

for example: Of Shakespeare; most do not know the story of King Edward has lessons each can experience that most every human has or will experience over the course of their lives. (but without reading and observing the emotions of the play/story most will never be able to combine the understanding)

The error is not the language, the error is the depth of the audiances intent to observe, care or even check into the available data to comprehend.

nothing i share is unique other than the combining ideology and what is funny is to read even more, that same ideology i noted is within most every religion on the earth!

And your condescending, insulting, and impolite attitudes, do not help your case.

Please try to change.

my change will come when i see the integrity of the applying parties


it is this EXACT frame of the accepted irresponsibility as to EXACTLY why i WILL NOT PUBLISH the math!

it is YOU, the peers, that are still being irresponsible to mankind!

the kids are already running with the ball and why all over the world so much is contesting the old paradigm of 'entropy'


and how long have i already been on this site?

think about it as when the folks realize how much time has been wasted, then you can feel that responsibility too!
 
Last edited:
it is this EXACT frame of the accepted irresponsibility as to EXACTLY why i WILL NOT PUBLISH the math!
That and possibly the fact that you don't have it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2318231&postcount=38
you bring me 12 of the team of my choosing; and then it will be written
find me an open check book with no strings attached (zero commitment except my life) and within 30 days from that assembly; the release will be public
i ask for the time; for the understanding to evolve within the qurum. (responsibility is requisite)
i ask for the funding, for the collaboration to be brought together

So what do you have?
Fantasy?
Crackpot wishful thinking?
 
Bishady,

Ok. I think I understand. You don't realize there is a problem with your posting style.

I was not objecting to the points I think you are trying to make just the unintelligble and confusing phraseology you use.

Use of good sentence structures tends to massively improve effective communication. Use of key words, hints, and obscure quotes, tends to create confusion and ambiguity.
 
I must suspect this isn't your best. It seems extremely less than your posts I read prior to this particular issue.
Speaking of babbling. None of that is appropriate & it certainly points more to you being the almighty unquestionable authority.
Again I must ask someone : WHAT the frigging hell is wrong with you? You 're making as much personal attack as you are attempting to debate the issue.
That childish crap undermines any point you may have or think you have.
I've given no reason for you to even suspect I'm dishonest, much less for you to call me such.
Work out your problem before responding.

I wrote in my #68; There are at least two sides to every issue and it is that division that brings us here.
This statement initiated your contention.

Which you expressed in your #94; Often there are not. There are solidly constructed buildings & there are flimsy facades.
Which I contended was self contradictory and was an admission of there being two sides. This was regardless of there being a building and a facade. Note well, the contention is as to whether there are two sides to an issue [argument], NOT the strength nor the subject of said issue or argument.

In my #101, I pointed to this by observing; You unintentionally proved my assertion through your fervour to make an irrelevant point. The strength of the argument is not at issue. That you see one side stronger than the other is evidence only of your own bias. Nevertheless, in your #103, you try to divert from the issue by writing; The basis for the "argument" is at issue. If there is no foundation, the "side" falls on its facade face & crumbles to dust before the "argument" begins.In my #118 I wrote; The "basis" of the argument [issue] is not the point in contention. That there are two sides to an argument is the point in contention. Your assertion is clearly an attempt to divert from the original point and raise a different point more supportive of your contention. I labeled this dishonest and branded your argument as theistic in nature. This branding was supported by your assertion; I see 1 "side" stronger because it is stronger. In effect, once again supporting my view that there are two sides and as well supporting my accusation of bias.

When you write in your #121; I've given no reason for you to even suspect I'm dishonest, much less for you to call me such. Clearly you are trying to obfuscate the point at issue and generalise it into irrelevancy. My contention that there are at least two sides to every issue or argument is not a philosophically shattering revelation in metaphysics. And I was somewhat surprised that you wanted to argue the point.
I regard this exchange as finished here unless you raise further diversionary issues.
Readers assuredly find this nit-picking somewhat self-indulgent and boring, as I do.

OriginalBiggles, Prime
 
-=-

I see you didn't work out your problem before responding.
You are the 1 misinterpreting, obfuscating, diverting & persisting in making stupid foolish assumptions about me & continuing unsupported unprovoked personal insults.
 
That and possibly the fact that you don't have it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2318231&postcount=38

here is a postulate shared in that post (p/s... gravity is entanglement; test with casimir, van der waals)

here is a simple 'google' work on the idea (you should see what is occuring all over the world) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=entanglement+gravity&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

So what do you have?
Fantasy?
Crackpot wishful thinking?
what this whole taco stand has been awaiting; the truth grounded to the 'last word'

2 items to consider;

If existence works only ONE way; then the math is the 'name' to know.

If life is within existence; then is existence defining itself?


notice 'words' are the 'creations' by mankind (fractals within existence)

as for you debating; it seems if you wanted to clearly define the claims, you would ask better questions.

Try not to end up in the ooooosual ad-hom BS

you have item above an in that link to observe, rather than 'telling yourself' that everything is wrong perhaps check into the material and see how and if there is more you should be asking
 
Bishady,

Ok. I think I understand. You don't realize there is a problem with your posting style.

I was not objecting to the points I think you are trying to make just the unintelligble and confusing phraseology you use.

Use of good sentence structures tends to massively improve effective communication. Use of key words, hints, and obscure quotes, tends to create confusion and ambiguity.

sure piss,

i understand that speaking in latin would do no good either.

i also noticed the responsibility of being honest, is a unique concept to this group, too. (sure fits in the right and wrong thread)

i like this below; (bad spelling but kind of 'me')

unintelligble and confusing phraseology

can any write a song with that?

be sure to include the line: Life: abuses entropy.

(remember it must be in 'rock-n-roll'

Why?

because we all, just rocks that can roll, by choice)

and to comprehend that can assist any in understanding; "right and wrong" and know what they do, in fact!
 
sure piss,

i understand that speaking in latin would do no good either.

i also noticed the responsibility of being honest, is a unique concept to this group, too. (sure fits in the right and wrong thread)

i like this below; (bad spelling but kind of 'me')

unintelligble and confusing phraseology

can any write a song with that?

be sure to include the line: Life: abuses entropy.

(remember it must be in 'rock-n-roll'

Why?

because we all, just rocks that can roll, by choice)

and to comprehend that can assist any in understanding; "right and wrong" and know what they do, in fact!

I really can't understand what are you saying. "Life: abuses entropy"... What does it mean? Are you challenging the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps?
 
I really can't understand what are you saying. "Life: abuses entropy"... What does it mean? Are you challenging the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps?

that was fair.

It means; to 'completely' understand, then to drill all the way down to the absolute in math; YES, the 2nd is not the law of 'life'

eg..... you and i are alive, first claim. We will die: perhaps not? The 'i' of me or you is the self we experience in mind (consciously aware) but each night, we sleep the 'i' is not choosing. But we are each still alive.

Then if, while awake, i contribute my seed (sperm/egg) to make another baby and then my period of choice ended the next day (physical death); in reality, physically; i am actually still live (in that child)

sure the day of choice is gone (our heaven) but the life of the lineage is not, a portion of the energy (light in tangible reality) is still existing and continuing.

such to know that, then in your body is your whole lineage since the beginning of time within you "alive and in the flesh" (the raising of the fathers; by truth itself)

another example would be to plant a tree; give of the energy (life) within you to 'support life to continue' and live in that contribution to existence (beyond the grave; our spirit)

but to think our memories go with us to some utter place is funny because one bump in the head and all your memories are gone (or simply see an alzheimers patient); the soul is not some thing that we can be ghosts and float around with memories and go see our dead relatives)

do i challenge the second: absolutely!

read the first law, then read the second; the first makes the second moot

if you ask why, then i will say it clearly; where did the potential difference come from? (causality of the difference to create the direction of entropy; to equilibriate)

meaning: if the start is balanced (1st), then maintain the causality before imposing the law of direction (2nd).

i consider it basic common sense

sure 'heat will go to cold' but heat is not a property, it is a measured affect of mass with energy upon it
 
-=-

Existence is not defining itself.
Matter & energy cannot be obeyed.
Heat is not an affect of mass.
Life does not abuse entropy.
You cannot be sensible or reasonable.
98% of what you write may as well be in Latin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your questions have no bearing on anything ...which is why I decided not to bother answering them.

They DO have bearing Max, but clearly you are afraid of answering them.

People who are Christians and believe in the Bible.

I asked you a question about the Bible, but you dodged it, Max. The question was, "Do you believe the events foretold in Revelations will happen literally as stated?"

Answer me the question, Max.

And it's even worse, in my view, if James didn't realize, didn't know, that it "might" offend some people.

I covered that already Max. It's not about whether it would offend anyone, but whether it's reasonable to take offence over a comedic sketch.

And, yes, in my opinion, homosexuality is a choice that one makes ...in the same way as religion is a choice.

I couldn't choose to get a boner looking at another man's asshole, Max. Are you saying you could?

It has nothing to do with whether you approve of people taking offense, it's whether those people felt offense or not. Feelings, ya' know? Or are you in the habit of seeking to approve everyone else's feelings?

Subjective feelings, ... hmm, see, there's the problem Max. Some people choose to take offense, and it seems you seem to think you have the right to moan about people taking offense, and that you don't approve of the video, even though nobody appears to have actually taken offense, you are making appeals on behalf of people who don't exist!

Again, it makes no difference. If someone is offended by something, then they're offended by it. You might not agree, but that's a whole 'nother topic altogether.

That's a big IF Max. Has anybody actually taken offense?

Don't have to make sense.

So you admit you are defending NONsense, then Max?

If people believe in God, then they believe in God, ain't got nothing to do with foreskins or fingernails or hair or beards or.....

It does exactly. I asked you why God would give us foreskins only to command some people to cut them off. Answer me this and stop dodging, because failing to answer questions posed directly at you makes you look shifty and dishonest.

See? You're trying to force everyone to believe as you believe

That's a downright LIE Max. I asked you a question about foreskins, I did not offer any personal point of view about them, nor advocate ANY action with respect to them.

What I am asking people to do is analyse the reasons why they believe what they believe, and understand that their personal beliefs should intrude into the lives of others. But for some reason the religious just can't help but proselytise and ostracise, despite direct teachings contrary to the latter.

....and denigrate everyone who believes something different to your beliefs.

Like I already said, Max, if you believe in the ridiculous, prepare to be ridiculed. Do you really believe that the events as described in Revelations will literally come true? Answer me this, Max.

That's just not very nice of you.

What do you want, hugs?

Reasonable? According to whom? Are you the one determining judge as to what's reasonable? If so, when did we vote you into that office?

By the same token, Max, who voted you in as the role of Offense Monitor? We are exchanging viewpoints, and so far, you are failing to justify yours.
 
-=-

Existence is not defining itself.

Are words created by mankind? Yes or NO

does mankind reside (live) within existence? Yes or No

In the overall scope, is existence (mankind) representing what it is with words, symbols, sounds and math? Yes or No

Matter & energy cannot be obeyed.

you will eat, sleep, shit, live and die, within the confines of 'mass and energy' whether you like it or not.

If what you state is your opinion; then i guess you do not follow the second law of thermodynamics 'either'.

Does all that exist, that you can experience; of mass and energy?

Are the rules equal to all of existence?

If existence operates only ONE way; is the math what is important to verify?

Can the math contradict evidence?

Heat is not an affect of mass.
then define HEAT?

if i have 2 identical pieces of steal; one is hot one is cold. What is the differences? What is UPON THE MASS, that is making the ONE HOT over the cold one?

Life does not abuse entropy.
which makes you a liar, by that statement. (because you cannot support your claim and responding without the intent, integrity or honesty to back it up)

You cannot be sensible or reasonable.
98% of what you write may as well be in Latin.

every question i just posted is in english when you can answer them and be absolutely honest, then the answers will be self evident
 
how about people making fun of race color or Jews for example.

A person is not responsible for those (being who they are) but they are responsible for their beliefs.

Why should we respect stupid beliefs, be it religious, scientic or political???

I never understood: If I were religious I wouldn't be offended, since I knew that the offenders would go to hell, so let them have a little fun while it last. :)
 
A person is not responsible for those (being who they are) but they are responsible for their beliefs.

Why should we respect stupid beliefs, be it religious, scientific or political???

I never understood: If I were religious I wouldn't be offended, since I knew that the offenders would go to hell, so let them have a little fun while it last. :)

If you believe in SOMETHING you should be able to defend it with reason, common sense and logic . :) .
 
If you believe in SOMETHING you should be able to defend it with reason, common sense and logic .

Love? Compassion? Empathy? Beauty? Sexiness?

I don't know. And maybe ........ Headache? Stomach ache? Tiredness? Depression? Hunger? Thirst?

Baron Max
 
If you believe in SOMETHING you should be able to defend it with reason, common sense and logic . :) .

Up to a point. There are factual things and there are things that are liked by simply choice,taste. That's why there is no point in arguing about the best band or the most beautiful girl.

But let's say the tallest girl, now that is measurable....One doesn't need to explain his/her choice in music. But I want a pretty damn good explanation in religion and politics, after all there are so many of them, so why exactly do you like that particular one???

I am by the way fine with explanations like this:

-- I am a Republican because I am rather wealthy and hate poor people and would like to keep it that way.

-- I am Catholic because I like to be led and I like pretty churches and all my family is like this. I also don't like to question authority or think for myself.

I might don't like explanations like this, but I accept them... :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top