CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: geothermal energy
Next: First time: Haversian canal/blood vessels of meteorite magnified to 4000X
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 00:53 On Jan 2, 5:57 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > news:h8dvj5djr2hf1fpv2l02n729l3vfsaqtc9(a)4ax.com... > > Hence, if Life After death exists, we certainly CAN prove > > it exists without actually going there and coming back and > > making an eyewitness report. An eyewitness report is NOT > > NECESSARY to scientifically prove it exists. > > And not to worry baby, we're working on it right now! > > (Geopelia) > But what's the point knowing it exists, if we can't come back? > > It's nice to be called baby, at eighty years old. Made my day! Yes it is nescius, but that belongs in nesci.physics.
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 00:56 On Jan 2, 6:37 pm, spiritual energy <solidst...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > An afterlife is pretty much impossible without some sort of higher > physical principle or some sort of a higher fundamental force. Some > may call this higher principle God. Currently there is no evidence for What is hihher? > such a force and there is no evidence for the existence of any God but > since one can never really prove a negative, life after death remains One can so prove anything analýtic negative. I wrote a proof against the three brands of gods on Wikipedia's Humanities help desk, with loghics and maths, and no one could rebut. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 01:07 On Jan 2, 9:13 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:57:06 +1300, "Geopelia" > > <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >(Geopelia) > >But what's the point knowing it [heaven] exists, if we can't come back? > > [Hammond] > First of all, if there is a heaven there is also a hell. > And people who are sent to hell will not be ALLOWED to > leave. Secondly, heaven is basically this same world we Nope, souls go wherever they want--if they're awake. There is no càrmá or doomsday. > are in, you will just see it through different eyes and feel > it through a better body. > But don't for a moment underestimate how different this > world would look if you're resurrected body (a.k.a. > "spiritual body") had a zero growth deficit. Words like; > splendor, magnificence, grandeur don't even begin to > describe the experience of "eternal life" which as you > recall is a "bodily condition" not a "time duration". > As far as "coming back to this world" I have no doubt > that should you be elected to go to heaven you will probably > be making many sorties back to the world you knew. > In fact, while we're on the subject, it is interesting to > conjecture just exactly what heaven must be like. In the > first place my research indicates that it is somewhere > between the ordinary "reality" that we are all familiar > with, and a "dream" meaning a nocturnal dream (albeit one > involving all five senses). It is apt to be a mixture of [snip fantasy] Enouh of your babbling--Vedics and astral projectors already know of heaven (or rather, the heavens) and the planes, which are relativistic--you got one thing wriht--but there's still no damned "God". > Note: Speech recognition software is only 99% accurate at > best and can drop to 95% if you are dictating into an > obscure program. This means that you'll have to correct one > to five words in every 10 lines manually. That's where the > typos come from and the misspellings. Also, I don't bother > to proofread a lot of this stuff and occasionally the It makes up words?
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 01:18 On Jan 3, 8:28 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > >(Geopelia) > >Very likely. I was brought up Church of England back in the thirties. > >Good old King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer. > >But I often refer to the Catholic Encyclopaedia for their official view. > > [Hammond] > Same here pretty much. I was born a New England > Congregationalists and like you consider the King James > version "the" Bible. Of course I haven't set foot in a > church in 50 years and probably never will again. Last time > I was in church I was the best man at my buddy's wedding. We http://google.com/groups?q=%22Halexandria+update%22
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 08:06
On Jan 4, 8:15 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:16:43 -0800 (PST), spiritual energy > <solidst...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > >On Jan 5, 2:48 am, Anti Vigilante <antivigila...(a)pyrabang.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:10:27 -0800, Don Stockbauer wrote: > > >> >[Don Stockbauer] > >> > God and the Universe are identical entities. > > >>[Anti Vigilante] > >> Pop-psychology bullshit. > > >[spiritual energy] > >It's not bullshit at all. There is no evidence for a God which is > >seperate from the universe. In fact there is no physical evidence for separate > >any God at all but that is a different matter. If God is seperate from > >this universe or exists outside this universe, then he has absolutely > >no effect on the universe we live in. > > >So if some kind of God exists, he/she/it must be part of this > >universe. Hence they are identical. > > [Hammond] > For chrissakes at least put your initials on the first > line of your post. When 4 people are in one post it is > impossible to tell who is talking without identifying > initials. > > In the first place Don Stockbauer who made the original > target statement doesn't realize there is a difference > between "reality" and "the universe". But there is. One > can prove this in the following way. At 9am tomorrow > morning we simply kill every living person on Earth. Then > at 9:05 am, HOW could it be proved the Universe still > existed? According to the laws of Physics, there is NO WAY > it could be proved, since Physicis requires an "observer"... > a "human" observer. Ergo... the Universe would NOT EXIST at > 9:05 am. > This is a simple proof that "reality" is caused by the > mind of Man, and without "reality" the "Universe" does not > "exist", i.e. with Man the Universe does not exist. Reality is mutval, whether by the mind or by the field, by man or by stone. Trees a'falling still make a woom when we're not there. > A corrolary of that proof is that "reality creates the > Universe". Therefore, "reality" is "outside the Universe". > And by simple deduction, "God is the creator of reality, and > therefore the creator of the Universe" > Finally, it is obvious from this demonstration that "God" > is simply "Man"...i.e., the "mind" of Man. > > So much for Philawsephy..... but there is more.... fact > of the matter.... from the above simple argument we see that > if anything happens to the mind of Man.... reality willl > change.... and thus the (observed) Universe will change... > and guess what.... there happens to be a FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT > in the mind of Man, and therefore a fundamental defect in > Reality, and therefore a fundamental defect in the > Universe... and this defect is the "Human growth deficit" > which causes a human brain growth deficit.... which causes > the entire OBSEFRVABLE PHENOMENON OF GOD which is what the > 1,333 pages of the Bible is all about. God != Man Your stinkin' Tanac even says God is not a man, which makes you a hairètic. Rather, it makes you a fraud--if you understood Scripture, you'd know the "New Testament" (Screw ye, King Dzhems and Bishops) was already refuted and contravent by the First. > Now, if you can't understand that.... I suggest you fijd > something better to do like bowling jor motorcycle How does your software write "fijd"? -Aut |