Our understanding of existence demands miracles.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: randyvs

Or, a god the duplicates itself, like cells do.

or like water droplets that make up the ocean. (or it's waves.)

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: snowspirit

So true. We don't understand and we probably don't deserve to at this point (We have regressed. So much).We inhabit only a very small sector of our intellect. Our understanding is limited. All of the other potential has been shut down because although we have the intellectual capacity for working our own miracles, emotionally we're still the club dragging cave people braining each other for gimme, gimme gimme...Too dangerous. Like giving a rocket launcher to a four year old. He wants the candy - all of the candy - and he'd blow up everyone to get it.

What do we develop over all else? Weapons. To be used against our own kind. "He's not my kind, he's a Christian." or "He's not my kind, he's a Muslim" or blah, blah, blah throughout history. So you burned witches at the stake. Real witches would have turned their oppressors inside out. It made NO sense. You're all humans. Get a clue. Stop being stupid. There's no excuse for it anymore.

Humans have the capacity to be small gods of their realm. Again. If they just accept their fate as caretakers of a beautiful place...Stop the enslavement. Stop the wars. Stop being stupid. Your are all born equal.

There you go!

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

eh??? since when has that been an ultimate fact??? and who decided that??

Oh sorry, it does require some thought.
Or
I did. And those are the rules that I've just made up.

as i see it, little thought is required. it is not a fact in any sense of the word.

still, im glad to see you dont take yourself too seriously. im not familiar with the rules you speak of, but if the fact you proposed is one of them, then im sure you'll have plenty of fun making the rest of them up too. just as long as we both understand that all of this is pure speculation and ought to be handled with a truckload of salt.

a reply to: TzarChasm

im glad to see you dont take yourself too seriously. so what are the rest of the rules?

In the interest of being fair?
I'll stop short of saying, what I say goes.
I'm only kidding. But surely you can see how suggesting an
endless concatenation of reverse generations is ridiculous?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

im glad to see you dont take yourself too seriously. so what are the rest of the rules?

In the interest of being fair?
I'll stop short of saying, what I say goes.
I'm only kidding. But surely you can see how suggesting an
endless concatenation of reverse generations is ridiculous?

i can also see how the god of the gaps is ridiculous. so we're in the same boat, sort of.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i can also see how the god of the gaps is ridiculous. so we're in the same boat, sort of.

Ah now you're talk'n to me my fellow member.
I think that may very well be my point.

And you were worried about a response?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

i can also see how the god of the gaps is ridiculous. so we're in the same boat, sort of.

Ah now you're talk'n to me my fellow member.
I think that may very well be my point.

that neither of us is closer to a definitive answer than the other?

a reply to: TzarChasm

that neither of us is closer to a definitive answer than the other?

Of course not!
My answer rests souly (get it ) on the spiritual answer that
your science disincludes by its own protocols.

a reply to: randyvs

would you mind elaborating?

a reply to: TzarChasm

What are the protocols of science? Surly you know?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

What are the protocols of science? Surly you know?

like the scientific method?

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

a reply to: randyvs

Thank you!

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

What are the protocols of science? Surly you know?

“Observe, analyze, deduce!”
The Science Dude

a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly! The scientific method by it self is fallible from
the beginning because it excludes mans spirituality.
There for, when it comes to anything spiritual, science
discludes itself.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly! The scientific method by it self is fallible from
the beginning because it excludes mans spirituality.
There for, when it comes to anything spiritual, science
discludes itself.

i think the exclusion of spirituality is what helps to make it as infallible as possible. spirituality relies heavily on emotional bias and subjective interpretation. this is not how science operates, and can actually contaminate results. excluding spirituality is excluding the human element as anything but a vessel by which the investigation proceeds. including spirituality is asking the investigation to yield particular results that confirm a preset conclusion, or that is the risk, anyway. the object of scientific investigation is NOT to tell us what we already think we know.

a reply to: randyvs
Dear Randy, I take it as a most esteemed compliment that you would consider my post to be un-negative!
Furthermore, any winemaker would doubtlessly agree with you that good wine starts with good water.
Now, about those loaves of bread...

a reply to: TzarChasm

i think the exclusion of spirituality is what helps to make it as infallible as possible. spirituality relies heavily on emotional bias and subjective interpretation.

Would you not say the same thing about our understanding of existence?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

i think the exclusion of spirituality is what helps to make it as infallible as possible. spirituality relies heavily on emotional bias and subjective interpretation.

Would you not say the same thing about our understanding of existence?

No. Unlike spirituality, existence does not rely on the human mind to operate.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe you missed something there.
As it's our understanding of existence that does
require a mind.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe you missed something there.

Pray tell, what am I ovrlooking?