"Neither the universe, nor the mind is omniscinet, as the absolute universe is a complex evolution from simple/complex randomness, to simple/complex randomness and uniformity___as is the mind. Nothing we witness, anywhere in the universe, shows omniscience or omnipotentancy."
You certainly have a peculiar way of putting things together, Lloyd, like relative absolutes and random uniformity. It certainly explains why you deduce as you do.
As far as omnipotence and omniscience go, they are, in effect "omni-" and therefore pertain to totality, which would be impossible to "show" because verification is solely based on observable phenomena; analogous to seeing a fraction of the light spectrum, whereas the total spectrum is undoubtedly even larger than your imagination.
Will you ever "see" omni anything? Even if were to exist, you wouldn't ever know it.
Did prophets write the bible? Weren't those people uneducated low lifes? Who's prophet was named Gad? You know that Gad (pronounced god) means extremely dirty, nasty, filthy? So these people weren't treated equal and they probably didn't receive the same kind of education so they didn't know how to count either. So I wouldn't take those numbers literally and they used their brains differently back then so you would have to understand that mentality to understand the numbers and we don't even understand how our brains work today so just forget it.
Not at all, but it is only one, and one that is a compilation of other ancient texts.
*** What do you mean by a compilation of other ancient text?
If you are referring to those of Hammurabbi etc then you certainly do not seem to have the correct perspective of history. Hammurabbi himself claimed to have gotten his information from someone ( the sun god I think), but even he, hammurabbi was after gilgamesh/ nimrod.
Further, Nimrod was from Cush who was from Ham who was one of the sons of Noah.
So those ancient laws were laws that would have been passed on by Noah unto his sons even as we see the law of capital punishment originating with noah as it is wtitten in genesis "whosoever sheds mans blood by man shall his blood be shed". God said this to Noah when he came out of the ark after the flood.
It follows that Shem, another son of Noah would have known the same laws that ham knew of and that he ham handed down to hammurabbi.
So as ham passed those ancient laws to hammurabbi so shem, the father of eber/ hebrews could have passed it down to moses.
What therefore moses did not get directly from God could easily have been a sort of "common/ general" knowledge ie knowledge that is not peculiar to any particular group.
Quote:
The point is that the corroborative accounts of every major nation of a global cataclysm referring to 10,500 B.C. should take precedence over one single source that could also be placed at that time if we change our interpretations of biblical texts or refuse to follow what others tell us - primarily the egyptologists who move around dynastic dates like they're timetravellers.
*** What are the corroborative sources to which you refer if you exclude the bible and the egyptian records and also the record of gilgamesh who is sumerian fron cush before the cushites decended into the land they now occupy in ethiopia?
The earliest record of any human starting from the god atum, who begot shu, who begot geb, who begot osiris etc according to egyptian mythology goes back only to 3200 BC.
That means that Adam of the bible was before the gods of the egyptians and so I believe those gods might have been sons of cain who were post humously made gods by ham, noah's son. Ham did this because he fell out with noah and sought to devise his own story of beginnings that excluded his paternal ancestors in my view.
Quote:
I hope you didn't close the site solely for your noticing Plato, because you would have missed volumes of hardcore science that for the first time in history gives solid proof of the biblical flood, and accurately places other accounts accordingly. Further, with regards to "those closest in time and place to the scene of events," the correlating "heaven-and-earth" astronomical maps of ancient civilizations point exactly, and only, to the end of the pleistocene era. - http://mars-earth.com/earthpage.htm
*** Not only plato but references to "geological records" which can easily be conjured up by so called scientists. Einstein's theories are held as concrete science by many yet he has a theory that says that the velocity of light relative to any moving particle etc es constant: which defies logic.
But he further goes on to derive a famous equation but in his derivation has terms like (C-v) and (C + v) where v is the velocity of a particle. That term contradicts his own postulate in that it expresses a velocity of light relative to a moving particle of c - v etc.
If you accept einstein's theories then we are not in the same classroom and you references to geologic records falls in the same category of these blunders by einstein in my view.
I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints.
I don't take anything, including Einstein's theories, whole, but fit things together that are based on correlated scientific evidence and religious texts. I wouldn't take sumerian and egyptian mythology as concrete evidence either, but if you looked through the site the main corroboration is the time of the flood which affected the whole world - which I propose was only possible if the world was pangean at the last ice age. All accounts point to this time.
The proposed era for Pangea, millions of years ago, is based on present-day drift rates, but a cataclysm of the magnitude described in all of the accounts of the nations back then would increase the rate many-fold which could then place Pangea and its separation at the supportable time frame 10,500 B.C.. If it fits, it fits; if it doesn't fit, then we throw it in the pit!
As for the zero, I think you are right. Yet, the absolute integer would always remain zero because infinity is both positive and negative. So any and all integers multiplied by infinity equal zero - the absolute point between positive and negative infinity (relative fractions between zero and negative infinity, and zero and positive infinity).
*** In other words you don't know. 0 x infinity could not be infinite.
Of course I don't know, but it's not me lacking mathematical knowledge, it's mathematics that "doesn't know"; that's why it's called an indeterminate form
Let's recap how the conversation went:
You said: infinity x 0 = a finite number
I said: You could say that but you'd be wrong.
Note that I am not telling you that I know the answer, but I am saying that to state that infinity multiplied by zero equals a finite number is incorrect. You can say that you define it to be finite, because you every time you used it, you could take it to be equal to 7, say, but I can say it's infinity: the point is that you cannot prove me wrong, and I cannot prove you wrong. Thus stating that the answer is always finite is incorrect.
Quote:
*** You meran to say finite not real: finite numbers multiplied bo 0 = 0.
Nope, I meant to say what I said: real numbers multiplied by zero are equal to zero. Infinity is not a real number, and thus all real numbers are finite.
hi there
i would like to believe in one God, what a world we would have if we all followed one Gods instructions our world would be perfect but looking at the world that just will never be unfortunatly
but for me there seems to be alot of evidence of creation and maybe more like intervention
hi there
i would like to believe in one God, what a world we would have if we all followed one Gods instructions our world would be perfect but looking at the world that just will never be unfortunatly
but for me there seems to be alot of evidence of creation and maybe more like intervention
Hi swoarg;
I tend to agree with you, but which one of God's instructions? And from which religion?
Lets keep it simple, I think if the world were to follow the 10 Commandments handed down by Moses, and the 2 Great Love Commandments given by Jesus, than indeed, the world would be a far far better place.
Best to you,
Pat
Last edited by Profpat; 11-28-2007 at 07:37 PM.
Reason: removed a Pat
I personally believe that if there could be a major discussion on all the forms of religions, and ideologies, by those that are interested in building a new form of Metaphysical thought. That there could be someday a New and brighter Metaphysics for those seeking meaning, to adhere to. If there was a Metaphysics that could be written with wording that sounded logical and not mystical, I do believe that a new following would be started, that someday could dominate world view. I can only hope that this would be possible.
__________________ Allen.
"Paradox of Potential popped Aware." ~Allen Barrow
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." ~Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
"Condemnation without Investagation is the Heigth of Ignorance" ~Albert Einstein
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ~Galileo Galilei.
Linear Mode
