So how would you prove that earth existed? How can you prove there was something before the big bang? How do you know absolutely for certain that no other planetary civilization lived before us somewhere else in the universe? BTW, It is possible to travel 70% of the speed of light through anti-matter annihilation propulsion. Whether anyone could hope to survive these speeds is another question. I'll find the NASA technical paper if you would like me to show you. Well we haven't been around for billions of years to observe everything that happened in this universe. This fact is not really analogous to any situation in the real world where we live today, as we fade into obscurity on an infinite timeline in a cosmos that is infinitely larger than the world.
you can't necessarily prove that there was something before the big bang, because humanity didn't exist to record any conditions before that. however, you can view the evidence that does exist and attempt to hypothesize about what would have caused that. that's not definitive proof. its hard to prove anything when all of the evidence has been eradicated. in a situation like that, all you can do is come up with the most likely scenario and attempt to improve the theory based on advances in technology and revealed evidence over time. so the answer to your question is - no one knows for certain. however, a stupid fantasy isn't as certain an answer as one that contains some scientific probability. what the fuck are you talking about? its not possible to travel 70% of the speed of light using antimatter propulsion, because no human on earth is in possession of more than about 1/100th of a microgram of it. try propelling something with that. yeah its theoretically possible, but so what? how does that have anything to do with your scenario?
OK I'll find the NASA technical paper since you demand it. They have a feasibility study. This is only a tangent issue anyway. NASA Antimatter Propulsion Engine You make an excellent "tsinamuh" by the way, and thereby preclude yourself from most of reality. Logic is the ultimate reality.
really, logic is the only reality? where is the logic in anything you have said at all? in your scenario, there is no void of evidence that the earth existed, there is just not a lot of evidence, and there is an unwillingness on the part of your aliens to go look for it. so, i guess they do what you think is logical...they assume that whatever they already thought was true is. i still don't see how this relates to our world at all.
Of course you could use them interchangeably in most cases, if you wanted to - although it might confuse the issue when distinctions between those words become necessary. That's not the issue. You implied I was simplifying things - as if I suggested an action would refer to a single, clearly understood belief or motive, and that's that. I, too, would be "skeptical about the idea of one cause ~ one action". If it's not your argument, it's at least your premise. This is where I got it: "Psychologists say there is approximately up to 20 causes for each behaviour -- and if one investigates what has prompted one to act, one can verify this." If you believe the psychologists, you also believe in their method, which was able to trace an action to at least 20 causes (or motives, or beliefs). Correct, that is my claim: beliefs are reflected in actions, and examining actions or habits may reveal the beliefs behind them. But there is a third factor here, which we have not really spelled out as such: beliefs may be encoded, as they are in the Bible. With such a reference, it's possible assess the correspondence between core beliefs and the actions they dictate (or preclude). Where actions deviate from the referenced belief, it can be said that the belief is not consistently held, and it may suggest that those actions originated from "alien" motives. This should be understood over and above the general link between actions and beliefs, which I think psychologists and behaviourists are qualified to study. I understand your objection, but let me explain. I do not propose that all actions have immediately obvious motivations, or that the beliefs informing them would be as evident as the action itself. So, considering that there are so many motivations behind an action, it is then wrong to generalize about a person's beliefs by observing their actions. Actions are not in themselves adequate reflections, but coupled with a reference, like I described above, it can offer an adequate assessment of the correspondence. I should add that just because speculating about the connection between actions and their underlying beliefs may lead to wrong conclusions, does not mean there is no connection. And I don't claim that every action has a clearly identifiable belief behind it, only that there is invariably a belief behind it. No it doesn't, but the "fruit" tells us at least two things: 1) that there was a belief that informed the action (a motivation behind the motive); 2) that this belief, whatever it is, is contrary to the principles of Christianity. For if the belief that murder is an offense against God subject to judgment was truly held, or should I say, truly held, it would have precluded such an action regardless of the motive or the many reasons that could have made it seem reasonable. Even if it was a so-called crime of passion, judged, payed for, and repented, it still remains a lapse of Christianity and can't be called the action of a Christian. What about the hypocrisy of actions? Consider acts of betrayal, treason, espionage, secret affairs... A man acts in one way when his friends are looking, and another way when his enemies are around, without saying a word. One set of actions is a lie, or even both, but behind them lies a belief: belief in the cause, the supremacy of his desires above his vows, perhaps a greater consideration that overrides all others. But when his country or his wife finds out, whatever his reasons were, they will be justified to conclude that those reasons contradict the terms of his allegiance, or their union, under which he pretended to act. It's not his words that betrayed his true beliefs, but his actions. That's why I said it's possible to narrow down the definition in order to exclude it, but then you've only excluded the narrowe-down definition - not deception in general, and definitely not the kind of deception I'm talking about. An actor is also in effect lying about his identiyy, but because he's being paid for the deception, and everybody expects it of him, there is no harm done; the same is true for a chess strategy: the game allows for it, and both players understand the rules. But I'm not talking about chess, or acting, but about true deception - the kind that betrays someone as not playing by the rules. There might be examples of cats practicing deception, I don't know. But I don't think it's really relevant. If cats aren't being true to some belief system, they've been consistent enough with their deceptions that for all we're concerned it might just be the way they're supposed to act. The same is not true for humans, whose actions and beliefs have immediate and profound effects on our lives. If Hitler was indeed a Christian, it has implications for everybody who follows his example of Christianity. On the other hand, if Jesus exemplifies Christianity, then Hitler was inconsistent with the belief system he professed to adhere to. And since we can't know everything that went on in Hitler's mind, the most telling difference must be found in his actions, like Jesus advised. Humans are infinitely more complex than trees, mostly because 80-90% of them lie below the surface and in the mind, inaccessible to anyone but God. That means we would have all seemed to be 90% similar, if it weren't for our actions. Digging though the leaves... When you were busy judging yourself in the way you describe - by telling yourself "a self-righteous or idealistic, or self-deprecating story... in which you interpret your actions" - I was the one who told you "A" doesn't equal "me", remember that? If you felt pinned down in any way, I can only guess that you were expecting some final judgement from me that would never come, and that even know you are sure it was there. I'm not going to turn this into another personal thread, though, so the speculation about who saw the biggest splinter in the other one's eye must necessarily stop here this time. So you say. The Ten Commandments would be a good start, though. Then perhaps examining how Jesus explained the beliefs and attitudes that should inform them, and following how the other epistles connect the dots. It's not difficult at all. Then again, you don't really need to know. You can simply judge them like you would judge anybody. Just like you don't expect to be judged by Christian standards, but by your own. Even when we Christians judge each other, it's by that principle. But ultimately we expect to be judged by God. Maybe Hitler even hoped for the same thing, but considering what Jesus taught, it's doubtful whether He would recognize Hitler as a faithful friend. People may pretend not to know this themselves, but I can't see the point. You can obviously only speak for yourself here. I honestly don't see any of the people here on sciforums as that gullible, but maybe your neighborhood is different. Such naivete would be a bad idea, even dangerous. It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the beliefs of people around you a little. Obviously everybody can have their say. Perhaps you're right about them. Fortunately nobody really has the high ground so that they're in a position to throw the first stone. There are appointed judges, and as you've observed, even they are fallible, so that should keep us humble enough to leave the decisive judgement up to God. In the meantime, the best we can do is to keep the rafters out of our own eyes.
In the recent past, you have proven just otherwise. I'll give some examples: In your Christmas greeting, you started off by saying "I am not out to get you, or break you down, or to criticize you ..." -- as if it would be my first thought upon listening to your greeting that you are out to get me, break me down and criticize me. You imputed a motive. With what you have said afterwards, and what you have done before, you have done just that though, you were out to get me, break me down, and criticize me. You said, "I know you don't believe in God, but 2000 years ago He showed us in whose image we are made". You treated me as if I lack something crucial, and that you know what that is, and that you have it. This is respect for you? To treat a person as if they are an imbecil? Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience? Where are they? As I once had troubles signing into MSN, so it kept showing my status as signed in, or signed out, repeatedly. Remember what you said? "Playing with the ignore button, aren't we?" This is an imputation of an evil motive. You saw that my status was changing, and from this, you concluded that I was "playing with the ignore button". Or, when I called, and said you gave me the wrong number, that you wrote one 0 too much, you said "It wasn't on purpose" -- as if I had accused you of giving me the wrong number on purpose, to harm me. I have made no such accusation, yet you imputed an evil motive. You told perplexity I called you "JUST to swear at you" -- as if my motive was to swear at you. You have not listened to me at all, and imputed an evil motive. You saw an action on my part, or predicted it, and you imputed the motive for it. An evil motive. Your Christianity is an elaborate excuse to not actually care for other people, to take the path of least effort -- and still be able to think good of yourself. If I treated someone the way you have treated me, I would be ashamed of myself for the rest of my life.
Does abortion contradict conception? Does your willingness to argue here with Jenyar contradict his deletion from your MSN? ---- Ron.
do i sense a personal conflict between H2o and Jenyar here? shame on you for bringing it to the board if thats the case.
Even a rock would be able to sense it... Like I said, I'm not going to turn this into another personal thread. I've answered water's post via e-mail.
I had already wondered why, if not to deliberately create an effect, H2o had alluded to the conflict here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55087 when she could indeed have just asked. I could have supplied my reply directly, if she'd mentioned it to me while on MSN at the time, or she could have found out for herself with a few minutes on google, as I had done for myself. and when this appeared http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1054967 as an action her part I had already expected, I must confess, to eventually encounter something like the accusation of imputed evil motive, seen above. If the wish is to sincerely resume an honest dispute in order to seek agreement, I would have no problem at all with that, in public or in private, but if that were the case there are more mature, straightforward ways to go about it. Or was it rather the belief that "Some things can't be talked through", with the intention to agree to agree? Or was it rather the intention to celebrate the impossibilty of agreement? Just wondering. It is at times difficult to account for conduct except in terms of demonology. ---- RH.
What do Jews Believe about Jesus? On the original request for demonology references, here's a link to the Jewish encyclopedia. Also, here is a link on what Jesus Christ believed about demons in the Jewish encyclopedia. He (Jesus) agrees with the Jewish view in his day.
Here is a present day source on the subject. These are actual tape recorded services from 1953, that have been transcribed verbatim into text or can still be listened to in its original form by clicking on a link in the right of the screen. The speaker had a verifiable supernatural ministry, and his insight into the subject today is unparalleled, but as this is an entire sermon of serveral hours length and the subject of demonology is not laid out as someone would when they write a book. So the subject is explained in depth but is touched on here and there throughout these two messages and requires some searching through it to find. Demonology #1 http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=108 Demonology #2 http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=110
Which reminds me, does the tape shown in the court case of The exorcism of Emily Rose really exist? I mean, does the fictional one have a real life counterpart?
