I do find it mildly interesting that you have at the same time attempted to dismiss all that I have stated, yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated.

I have not endorsed time travel at any time.

You have asked why I answered your question with a question. It is because your answers raise larger questions than those you seek to disprove, while failing to address the points that have been raised.

I call that "spin"

A quick question in return, what exists beyond the rim of time and space?

what do you mean by the "rim", do you mean the edges of the universe? A quick question back, is the "rim" or edges of the universe a "physical barrier"?

Surely anyone who has studied the subject of time-travel has considered the implications of the answer.

I am quite sure the hypothosis of time travel has been well considered.

Thanks
Nimrod

Your welcome

do u know the big bang theory...

is mentioned in the quran u know...

Im sure root is well aware of that....

It doesnt look like he is....

Root “I call that spin”. This is what I call spin:

The placement of quotation marks as though you were quoting something I stated:

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part." Was your’s and your’s alone.

When it was brought to your attention:

“Root, where did I say this "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part"?, you failed to edit your original post or to take credit for the statement in your following posts.

Your post:

“here are your words:”
When I set my mind to pondering that question, I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers. Is at best a half-hearted attempt at making a correction.

Still failed to state that what you implied was not what I said.

More spin:

“I have not endorsed time travel at any time”.

“Finally, a quick question for you. Why do you suppose that when someone sees a "Ghost" they consider it to be a spirit and not a time traveler?”

You in no way qualified your “quick question” with any remarks such as “while I don’t and never have endorsed time travel, not even as a possible explanation for claims of sighting ghosts or spirits”

In intellectual discussions what you did is often times seen as indorsing the alternative as being logically or historically equal. That is why I made the reply:

“I do find it mildly interesting that you have at the same time attempted to dismiss all that I have stated, yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated”.

Your response neither clarified your original statement nor correctly addressed my reply:

“Why are you answering the question by asking a question! If you don't consider actual time travel what about "time" anomalies, I mean Ghost, time traveler and time anomalies are no less or more probable”.

“As to your quick question, which do you feel is more probable and why?”

The article you cited in no way address’ the points I raised in my original posting, or even time-travel for that matter.

Your final statement “I have not endorsed time travel at any time” in no way helps prove or disprove anything in regards to my original posting.


You have also repeatedly failed to answer many of the points I have raised, and in many of your attempts, your answers contain statements that imply I have said something that I didn’t:

“I did not see where you showed it existed!”

My statement was “My post not only shows why there is a suggestion that the supernatural exists, it also shows that for me it is a certainty.”

Many of your posts simply do not make sense:

Root “Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability”.

My reply, “what is the boiling point of fresh water at sea-level here on Earth? Why does water boil? What effect does elevation changes have on the temperature required to boil water, ect.”?

Your reply, “which would be a scientific probability”.

So now it is no longer a scientific FACT that fresh water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level?

Your statement, “Again, science niether proves norr disproves the existence of god and no creator is falsifiable. An unproven God is not falsifiable so it is false until proven otherwise”.

Fails to address the points I raised as to the probability of the existence of spirits and the implications that if there are, within reason, spirits then it is not unreasonable to believe that there is a God.

If you want to counter my original post, then show everyone why it would be a moral certainty for a reasonable person to disclaim EVERY single claim anyone has ever made concerning inter-acting with a spirit.

Your statement of “I am always open to the interpretation of truth” is not backed up by your statements on this thread.

I truthfully related an incident in my life. I gave you my interpretation of what I thought occurred. You have neither offered any reasonable alternative explanation, nor shown any open-mindedness towards the explanation I offered.

Your statement “The mind is like a parachute, it does not work unless it is open” is very true, perhaps you will ponder your statement in regards to yourself.



Root I could spend the morning going back through your posts and showing them for what they are, but it is getting to be a bit of a bore already.

Perhaps a 4th re-reading of my posts on this thread, along with your replies would be helpful for you.

I will try to post the 3rd thread “Why do you disbelieve?” this week. Perhaps it will suit your rebuttals a little better.

As to your last question:

I know of no scientific argument suggesting that there was a physical barrier beyond the rim of space and time just moments before or during or after the “Big Bang”.

So unless you can present me with a scientifically accepted theory showing that one exists now at the rim of space and time, I will remain convinced that in fact, no physical barrier exists now, or at any time in the past.

Thanks
Nimrod

Greetings Nimrod,

Originally Posted by Nimrod

Many of your posts simply do not make sense:

Root “Science does not really prove anything. It merely offers a probability”.

My reply, “what is the boiling point of fresh water at sea-level here on Earth? Why does water boil? What effect does elevation changes have on the temperature required to boil water, ect.”?

Your reply, “which would be a scientific probability”.

So now it is no longer a scientific FACT that fresh water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level?

Sorry to interrupt here, but it seems that root is outlining the falsificationist understanding of how science operates, an idea that you may or may not be familiar with. In simple terms, science cannot prove anything to be true, but it can prove some things to be false.

Peace

"They recognize the bounty (blessings) of Allah, yet they deny it and most of them are disbelievers". [An-Nahl 16:83]

C Z Gibson, I agree with your post. What I see in Roots posts, among other things, is his falsely attempting to makes claims as to the probability or not God’s existence and wrap those attempts in science.

He goes on a number of bad assumptions, just a couple are:

#1 Is that unless we have instruments or methods to measure something it doesn’t/can’t or even probably exist. X-Rays existed long before we were aware of them.

#2 The assumption that all spirits are or will never be delectable by some scientific manner.

It has been speculated that spirits may disturb the magnetic fields or could/may be detected in other ways. If this one day becomes provable, then for Root the spirit world becomes scientifically true.

That in its self has no more bearing on today’s existence of spirits than it did on the existence of X-Rays before science could detect them.

Thanks
Nimrod

When you say spirit wat do u mean?

Abdulla4ever, for the intents of this thread, I am using the word as defined by # 2 and # 4 a,b.

Thanks
Nimrod

spir•it
n.
1.
a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.
2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as:
a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.
5.
a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit.
b. The essential nature of a person or group.
6. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.
7.
a. An inclination or tendency of a specified kind: Her actions show a generous spirit.
b. A causative, activating, or essential principle: The couple's engagement was announced in a joyous spirit.
8. spirits A mood or an emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering.
9. A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit.
10. Strong loyalty or dedication: team spirit.
11. The predominant mood of an occasion or a period: “The spirit of 1776 is not dead” (Thomas Jefferson).
12. The actual though unstated sense or significance of something: the spirit of the law.
13. An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance. Often used in the plural with a singular verb.
14. spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.

Greetings,

Originally Posted by nimrod

C Z Gibson, I agree with your post. What I see in Roots posts, among other things, is his falsely attempting to makes claims as to the probability or not God’s existence and wrap those attempts in science.

I don't think he is. I think you're missing root's basic point, which is that science can't prove anything, but it can disprove some things. So, on the question of god, we can say his existence hasn't been proven or disproven. That he probably doesn't exist is an opinion (one which I share) - I don't think root's trying to make out that science somehow shows this to be the case.

He goes on a number of bad assumptions, just a couple are:

#1 Is that unless we have instruments or methods to measure something it doesn’t/can’t or even probably exist. X-Rays existed long before we were aware of them.

Where has he assumed this?

#2 The assumption that all spirits are or will never be delectable by some scientific manner.

Where has he assumed this?

The ghost question is similar to the god question - at the moment there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. When decent evidence arrives, then people should make up their minds. You believe you've already seen convincing evidence, and that's fine - it's just that some of us haven't.

Peace

Originally Posted by czgibson

You believe you've already seen convincing evidence, and that's fine - it's just that some of us haven't.

Wise words.
That's really what it boils down to.
My belief in God in based on evidence within, if you like.
It may be difficult to convey that evidence to non-believers, or they may not agree that my evidence stands up to their personal scrutiny.
For me personally, however, it does. It has, and to this day continues to be strong enough evidence for me to base my faith on!

Before I go, I gotta go off topic for a sec and ask:
Who is that guy on your avatar?
And is he yawning, crying or shouting?

Peace.

Greetings,

Originally Posted by glo

Wise words.

Thank you.

That's really what it boils down to.
My belief in God in based on evidence within, if you like.
It may be difficult to convey that evidence to non-believers, or they may not agree that my evidence stands up to their personal scrutiny.
For me personally, however, it does. It has, and to this day continues to be strong enough evidence for me to base my faith on!

I think this is exactly what separates believers and non-believers.

Before I go, I gotta go off topic for a sec and ask:
Who is that guy on your avatar?
And is he yawning, crying or shouting?

That's my favourite composer, satirist and scourge of the Religious Right, Frank Zappa. The picture is taken from his 1970 album 'Chunga's Revenge', and I'm reliably informed that he's yawning. It's ambiguous though, and I like that.

Peace

Originally Posted by czgibson

I think this is exactly what separates believers and non-believers.

Being married to an atheist I know it only too well ... and I learned it the hard way!

That's my favourite composer, satirist and scourge of the Religious Right, Frank Zappa. The picture is taken from his 1970 album 'Chunga's Revenge', and I'm reliably informed that he's yawning. It's ambiguous though, and I like that.
Peace

Zappa! I should have known!
I know him as a musician, but know nothing about his 'scourge of the Religious Right'. Perhaps I will read up on him.

Peace.

Cz Gibson I didn’t, and still don’t, see a problem with my original wording “I first looked toward science for answers. While science is the source to the answers of our natural world, it is lacking in answering the existence of the supernatural, the beyond natural”.

Root was the one saying that I was in error. I have to assume that he was basing that judgment on something. He went on to offer this answer to what I posted about the proven scientific fact of the boiling point of water (Although the reason I posed the question seemed to have been missed by him):

"I don't quite see the relevance here but I will go with it. Firstly your question would be better phrased as "why does water boil at different temperatures at different altitudes" the answer to which would be a scientific probability, the best guess based on the evidence obtained.

If you heat water at an altitude of 500ft you need to heat it to 100.5c. to get it to boil. At 1000ft you need to obtain a temperature of 101.0c for the water to boil. We can calculate the differing temperatures required to achieve a boiling point of water at a given altitude. (This is mathematical and thus a given fact).

If I throw a stone, I could calculate how much energy is required for the stone to travel a set distance. Again this is mathematical and will offer an absolute truth just like the boiling point of water".

He did offer the same caveat as you though; "Of course, like I explained about "why" gravity does what it does and why "water boils" at a set temperature cannot be given as absolute truth, only the best "guess" based on current understanding on the world around us".

That is mostly just semantics though to say that science doesn’t prove anything, that it just offers probabilities and best guess'.

Science has proved that, if given the circumstances as they exist on Earth, it is a proven fact that water will boil at the same exact temperature as does on Earth. Not just probably, but to a certainty.

Since Root used measurable events as an answer as to what he was getting at, I had assumed that if the presence of spirits becomes scientifically measurable then he would accept them as existing.

Did you see him implying something differently?

His statement “An unproven God is not falsifiable so it is false until proven otherwise”; seemed to indicate the bad assumption that until something becomes detectable or measurable then it remains false.

Did you see him implying something differently?

When you state that all Root has been offering is an “opinion” that God doesn’t exist, I don’t quite see him saying the same thing as you are saying; “That he probably doesn't exist is an opinion (one which I share)”

The statement I saw him make implyed “([God or the existence of spirits] My edit) is false until proven otherwise”.

Did you see him implying something differently?

I hope you can see why I have worded my posts on this thread as I have:

some of the accounts I read about seemed very believable.

It was my one and only interaction with the spirit world, but it was also, for me, undeniable.

For me it became impossible (Not just to a moral certainty) to not believe in the afterlife.

My post not only shows why there is a suggestion that the supernatural exists, it also shows that for me it is a certainty.

You seem to be missing many of the finer points of what I have posted.

yet you seem to indorse time travel as a possible explanation for what I have stated.

You have neither offered any reasonable alternative explanation, nor shown any open-mindedness towards the explanation I offered.

What I see in Roots posts, among other things

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Thanks
Nimrod