Ben J. Schmoe wrote:
Arminius is too perceptive for you, Dan~.
Your filthy lies don't get past him.
He knows you weren't being sarcastic!
»So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.«
»Should my ILP membership be thought over?« **
It's run by these antitheist scum!
How could the humble theist hope for well balanced communication?
Do you know the answer?
James S. Saint wrote:
Thousands of years later, in English, one cannot go strictly
by an ancient construct of the word. **
Why not? I can! And I do it without changing any linguistic form, neither
of the Ancient Greek nor of the English language. So it is correct to
do that. One merely has to arrange with one or more of the others about
the meanings of the language forms (i.e.: the Ancient Greek language has
disappeared but not its meanings and forms). And if that is the case,
then referring to another language, especially to a "dead" language
like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit ... and others, is no problem
James S. Saint wrote:
English Prefix a-
1. a reduced form of the Old English preposition on, meaning »on«,
»in«, »into«, »to«, »toward«
preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate
adjective or an adverbial element (afoot; abed; ashore; aside; away),
or before an adjective (afar; aloud; alow), as a moribund prefix with
a verb (acknowledge), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present
participle in -ing (set the bells aringing); and added to a verb stem
with the force of a present participle (ablaze; agape; aglow; astride;
and originally, awry).
So strictly by the construction of »toward«, the word
in English would be »toward-theism«, »into-theism«.
English uses bits of many languages and often one ancient root is contrary
Greek Prefix a-
1. not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocial
Not only has the formal definition of »atheism« been established
for more than a century, but the use of the word hasn't changed a bit.
Atheists believe that there is no God. The formal definition of Atheism
is the doctrine that there is no God. Atheists proclaim there is no
God and in arguments attempt to prove that there cannot be a God. They
are God-haters. And for those who simply don't know or care, English
as a specific word that means that, »Agnostic« (which uses
that Greek root for »a-«: »a-gnostic« = »void-of-knowing«,
»without-knowing, and also »against-knowing«).
Greek Prefix an-
1. not; without: anaphrodisiac
If they are so concerned, as they obviously are, why not just use
the word, »Antheist«, »Antitheist«, or »Agnostic«.
They don't because it is intended as a semantic game of rhetoric and
feigned innocence. They worship their savior-god »Plausible Deniability«,
the god of serpents, cowards, liars, and thieves. **
I prefer the original meaning of both the prefix a and the
prefix anti, so that I can correctly say: most modern atheists
are antitheists. I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning
of the Ancient Greek prefix a because of rhetorical reasons.
But all this rhetorical reasons don't matter for those who know what is
meant by the original morphemes a and antiand
what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes a and anti.
Are antifeminists called afeminists? What do antifeminists
do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they
are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists. Demanding
the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. masculinists)
that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the
same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call opposition
or fighting against. Feminism, militarism, theism, ... and
so on (there is just no end ...) - they are all part of Hegel's Dialektik,
so they develop according to Hegel's dialectic process: thesis => antithesis
»An adjective modifies the verb .... **
No. An adjective modifies a substantive (noun), and an adverb modifies
What I do have is an opinion, that the way you argue it, gives
me, at least, the impression of a crackpot, and that is no insult ....
My impression of you hasn't changed. You are nothing but a bully and
you are and will be where you are as result. .... You are a bully. Just
read your posts. .... You're a crackpot" on and on. .... Yeah,
I'd call that being an intellectual bully. You think you are the owner
of the playground and it is apparent in your contempt for anyone else
playing on the playground. .... A bully will always deflect blame. -
Bully. - And I don't need to feed a troll. .... Shit, You are such a
You don't want to insult James, want you?
James S. Saint wrote:
Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era
crew, now called »scientists«, proposed that objects of
mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious
»force« to be called »gravity«. Newton became
famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this »force
of gravity« so that it could be tested with a variety of mass
objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough,
masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting
them and related to the amount of mass of each object..... The Modern
Science concept of »Forces« is merely a Modern Science superstition
stemming from the Newtonian era.
James S. Saint wrote:
»An adjective modifies the verb, such that the verb does not
get modified without it.« **
What »adjective« are you talking about? A »force«
is a noun, not an adjective. »Gravitational« is an adjective
of that noun, although »gravitation« is a noun.
»Forces do exist. Perhaps, and I don't think anyone will argue,
our knowledge of what we call a gravitational force is incomplete
but I continue to see that the mathematics that applies the concepts
can still calculate the required energy to escape it's "grasp"
(perhaps 'grasp' isn't appropriately descriptive either, as it seems
to evoke an effort or force that maintains it).« **
And here you state something of which you know so little about (physics)
as though you had proof. Why do you believe that forces exist? You believe
it because someone told you they do. And they told you that because
they have a reliable predictive formula which they have demonstrated.
That certainly is evidence of the possibility of something's existence.
But it has not been falsifiably proven (a demand within science). Many
predictive theories can be formulated out of complete non-sense. Something
can't be falsifiably proven to exist until there is no other option
left but for the entity to exist.
»But the theoretical model works in an effort to predict how
much energy is required to propel a mass into space and to determine
return methods that counter its effects to prevent the result of a
rather bug like splat against the windshield earth on the return trip.
The theory has a functionally applicable component. It remains useful.
Your choice might be to present something as or more useful.«
Certainly true. But something being »practical« does not
make it true. Newton's laws were practical only to later be stated as
wrong. It was practical to calculate very many things throughout society
based upon the theory of the gods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. How practical
something is at that moment depends upon how much precise detail is
required concerning the specific subject. The Roman gods theory was
of little use in predicting the path of a cannon ball. And the forces
theory is of no use in explaining why the universe exists, why protons
stick together, or why charged particles separate. They merely declare
these things as »fundamental«, just as the Roman gods theories
used to do, »it is just the way it is«, or in the Abramic
religions, »I am that I am«.
»They aren't claiming they know it is magic.« **
They claim that it is inexplicable (ie »magic«), at least
until THEY can explain it in such a way as to make it appear as though
they were right all along, no one else can for sure, nor is allowed
»If you wish to change the circumstance of that lack of knowledge
go for it, but I doubt that vector will take place arguing theories
on an internet philosophy forum. I certainly don't have the mathematical
background to argue with you regarding 'your' theory.« **
Why do you think it requires mathematics? Because they use mathematics?
I made one single post on Physics Forums merely introducing the concepts
and what I did to substantiate them because someone asked me of »your
theory«. The post was immediately deleted and I was immediately
banned for life for »arguing an alternate theory«. Is that
the kind of forum you are recommending? All of the other »Science«
forums do basically that same thing although usually with far less hysterical
reaction. They do not permit controversy. They are there to preach THEIR
gospel, not listen to alternatives. They have been invited to come here.
Where are they?
On a philosophy forum, one would expect for a theory to be questioned
in an inquisitive way. When I say, »It works like this«,
there are three basic responses;
1) Why do you think it works that way (concerning some detail perhaps).
2) No, it works this other way instead (your response).
3) You are just demanding faith from us.
Philosophical thinking people, including scientists, would be expected
to respond with option (1). Eugene Morrow did it (so as to defend his
own theory), Sanjay did it (only contending with my definition of »conscious«),
Mechanical Monster did it, Arminius did it. None of them have questioned
it to my satisfaction and thus I know that none of them fully grasped
it, but none of them could find anything contrary, logically unsound,
or evidence to be otherwise. Science cannot argue with it. And thus
on Science forms, it isn't even allowed to be mentioned (I have asked
ahead of time. They say »NO!« without even seeing it), the
exact same treatment one would expect from a defensive Church; »Doubting
us is not allowed. You are the Devil«. **
Although I would have some questions for you, James, concerning RM:AO,
I mostly agree with that what you are saying about the relationship between
science and RM:AO. Scientists have problems when it comes
to argue against RM:AO. For example: It is in fact impossible
to show or even prove respectively disprove with physical means and methods
what physics is; that is only possible with language and with philosophy.
(This is roughly that what Heidegger once said in an interview.) RM:AO
is a kind of metaphysics, a kind of ontology. ILP is a philosophy forum,
thus the ILP members should be happy, if someone had such a RM:AO.
But what is the ILP reality? James S. Saint introduces RM:AO,
but for many ILP members he seems to be a »burglar«, a »housebreaker«,
and his RM:AO his »machinegun«. This ILP members
are not fair and also not typical for a philosophy forum.
Philosophy has also to be a realm of science, yes, but science has also
to be a realm of philosophy. It is the interdependence which makes both
successful - otherwise both become dictatorships, religions, new religions
with new dogmas and new bondages which have been increasing for so long.
Zinnat, I didn't say that religions are nothing but faith
or i.e. that religion and science are very much different because I said
that they have much to do with each other, but nevertheless: they are
not the same, that is also clear. They have the same root: belief.
Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science culture.
Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture.
Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore the
typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free
universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science.
That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures.
Dear Zinnat, your response confirms my statement.
The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different
idea when it comes to undertand what »nature«, »physics«,
»universe«, »life«, ... means. This is even
perceptible when you read i.e. Zinnat's texts because they indicate,
although not always, his belonging to the Indian culture. Humans at
different places and times understood, understand, and will understand
their environment differently, they even have their own »worlds«,
and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how »science«
was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the
Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture,
by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian
culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic
culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian
culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even
their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian
culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also
the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a)
a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion,
so that something which could be called science nearly remained
or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions
that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.
You may say (for example): »there wre the constructions of the
Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions
and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian)
culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)«. Alright, but
they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions,
and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has
a concept of an autonomous »science« and »technique/technology«.
You may see what it means to have a more religious »science«
and »technique/technology« when you look at thre current
Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than
in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the
so-called enlightenment (Aufklärung).
It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific
time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence;
the era of the enlightenment (Aufklärung)
was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too
unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for
example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too
wise - for science as an enlightenment (Aufklärung),
but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical,
ontological) science. **
Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of »relativity«,
»gravitational force«, »electromagnetic force«,
»strong nuclear force«, »weak nuclear force«,
»speed of light«, »thermodynamics«, »quantum«,
»big bang«, »inflation of the universe«, »black
holes«, »dark matter«, dark energy», ....?
That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures
had their best time in order to invent and form something like science
and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories
for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they
had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities
are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution).
The »scientists« of the Non-Faustian cultures researched
at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think
of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was
no university in a Faustian sense.
My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were
not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in
a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one
could relatively freely study and research because the universities
were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures.
So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially
the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and
cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian)
monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.
In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in
orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which
are related), »scientists« or technicians were killed after
important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific
system, all that what we - the Faustians - call »science«
lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and
research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real
science, is unique, is Faustian.
The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably
it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out
of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will
probably be similar to the monks of the so-called »Middle Ages«
but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably
decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.
You have to know Goethe's »Faust«, especially the
second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is
meant with »Faustian culture« and why all the other cultures
are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian
culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a
science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most
important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to
read Goethe's »Faust« or Spengler's »Decline of the
West« when it comes to really and well understand what »Faustian
culture« means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge
is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse
of Faust and the Faustians.
The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one
which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic
culture; all so-called »monotheisms« have their origin in
this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts,
and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.
Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or
less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious
culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.
It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented
and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen
are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible
politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next
goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else,
and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.
Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with
his »Faust«, but also predicted the future of the
Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science,
thus for a Faustian culture (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively
faith. The German word for belief is Glaube
(and to believe = glauben), and this has its
roots in the the term FÜR WAHR HALTEN - HOLD FOR TRUE
(ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science,
and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology
have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and
higher than religion and theology. For belief there are
also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical
side and way and (2.) a theoretical side
and way. (1.) The practical belief leads
to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science;
(2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology
and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures
have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners
are saying that there is a huge difference between religion and
science and between theology and philosophy, then they are saying
more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not
as huge as they always assume. **
The root of religion, theology, philosophy, science, and something near
is belief as a FÜR WAHR HALTEN - HOLD FOR TRUE
(ACCEPT AS TRUE); but science and philosophy are more elaborated
and higher than religion and theology. For belief there are
also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical
side and way and (2.) a theoretical side
and way. (1.) The practical belief leads
to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.)
the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher
form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways
- but they did it differently. When the Westerners are saying that there
is a huge difference between religion and science and between theology
and philosophy, then they are saying more about themselves and their
culture because that differences are not as huge as the Westerners always
The Faustian culture has been declining since a time when the number
of its population began to increase exponentially because of its first
steam engines and their consequences, then the number of its population
stagnated, and since about 1970 the number of its population has been
shrinking. But if you look at all those machines, then you can say that
the Faustian culture has not been declining because all those machines
are Faustian machines, and their number has been increasing exponentially
since the first Faustian steam engine. Unfortunately - because of the
danger - those machines are able to replace all human beings (**|**).
I am a traditional Hindu. **
Arminius, ..., i am a proud Hindu .... **
Am I a proud Faustian?
All cultures have a good and a bad side. If there were not a Faustian
culture there would not be the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and
consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems
of education and science, the technical and consequently the economical
and social progress with all its good and bad sides.
Now - please - let's stick a bit more to the theme, the topic of this
thread: Universe and Time.
Secondly, this concept of the presence of 96% matter and 4%
antimatter does not seem to be logical. **
Not 96% matter and 4% antimatter, as
you say, but 96% dark matter and 4% matter, as they say.
As some define antimatter as a opposite of matter, how 4% of
antimatter would have survived that long since Big-Bang? Why it did
not intract with the same amout of matter and destroyed at the very
moment it came into existence? **
Not 4% of antimatter but 96% dark matter and
merely 4% matter, Zinnat. They say: In modern physics almost the
entire Universe is missing: 96 percent. We can only account for just 4
percent of the Universe. This is because we cant find enough mass
in galaxies to maintain their rotational spiral shape and stop stars spinning
off into deep space. To explain why galaxies are not breaking up mankind
has come up with the idea that 96 percent of the Universe is Dark Matter!
Dark Matter is just a name; we dont have a clue what it is. The
only thing we know is that Dark Matter does not shine like stars or reflect
light or give off any detectable radiation it just creates a gravitational
They just don't know what dark matter really is.
Higgs-Bosan (if that is true) .... **
Higgs-boson, if that is true, yes.
When we close our eyes, we (1.) keep the
eyes' pupils moist (during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does
not work), (2.) protect the eyes from debris
(foreign bodies; during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does
not work), (3.) turn off external stimuli,
(4.) ensure the forming of the sleeping hormon
Melatonin, (5.) treat the brain with care
because it has less to do during the sleep with closed eyes.
We need not to think for blinking so a sleeping person also
can do that, just like the case of breathing. **
A sleeping person does not blink (see also => 1.
and 2.). And breathing is not like blinking,
I have no visual perception at all, having been born without
optic nerves, so I don't see anything at all, not even darkness.
You see nothing, not even darkness; so we can conclude that nothingness,
if it exists, is not dark, not bright, not light, not coloured, has nothing
to do with colours, not even black or white.
James S. Saint wrote:
»What do you see when you watch the radio transmissions
from an antenna?«
- Nothing. **
Caught! The nothingness exists: as the radio transmissions from
According to the common physicists the radio transmissions from
an antenna are the remains of the cosmological radiation (cosmic
microwave radiation); but according to RM:AO the cosmological
radiation (cosmic microwave radiation) does not exist because the universe
is indefinite, relating to both space and time, it has no beginning and
no end, so it is eternal, indefinite.
Empathy declines in masses. In less populated areas its still
Do I care if a million people in one metropolis do not care about each
other? No. **
The great cultures are city cultures, and world history is city history
and megacity history.
And it is the cities that are declining. **
Globally the cities are rising, not declinig, not yet. In the year 2007
the global city poulation reached the mark of 50% (for comparison: 1950
it was 30%, and 2050 it will probably be 70%). But most cities of the
Occidental culture are declining.
That is is very depressing. The future looks bleak.
A proud Hindu, Zinnat?