Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used. I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get back to reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from 'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants that pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct.
Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of re-evaluating against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god. Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know more. The spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its history of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to learn in terms of grace and fellowship. On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that you > can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash after > youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone. > Allan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning my hands. I > > use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more difficult dirt on > > my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often I wear > > gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for the tip. > > I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead of stone, > > you're right. > > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote: > > >> Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for > >> getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,, > >> any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over from > >> fixing my maxi egg coddler. > > >> now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it work? > >> Allan > > >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find the God > >> > concept > >> > much more to the point. :) > > >> > I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then matter - > >> > though. > >> > This sounds very man-made to me. ;) > > >> > As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much more > >> > vivid > >> > than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's true. But > >> > the > >> > children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is really > >> > good. > > >> > Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about? > > >> > 2012/12/4 Allan H <[email protected]> > > >> >> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting > >> >> evidence.. > >> >> Allan > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of > >> >> > Creation with its series of universes. > > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> That is not true the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed .. as > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to support > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> other than it sounds good. There is more evidence supporting the > >> >> >> spiritual > >> >> >> realm than parallel universes > >> >> >> Allan > > >> >> >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >>> In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is beginning > >> >> >>> and > >> >> >>> end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in parallel > >> >> >>> and > >> >> >>> continuously many universes are being born and many are dying , > >> >> >>> but > >> >> >>> Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , just > >> >> >>> like > >> >> >>> the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The difference is > >> >> >>> that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is > >> >> >>> non-dual. > > >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >>> > Hello Andrew, > > >> >> >>> > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are not > >> >> >>> > true. > >> >> >>> > I > >> >> >>> > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. Mattter is > >> >> >>> > all > >> >> >>> > that > >> >> >>> > is > >> >> >>> > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy. To > >> >> >>> > me > >> >> >>> > there > >> >> >>> > is > >> >> >>> > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the begining there > >> >> >>> > was > >> >> >>> > only > >> >> >>> > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the spirt > >> >> >>> > of > >> >> >>> > God. > >> >> >>> > That is all matter comes from spirit. > > >> >> >>> > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: > > >> >> >>> >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component > >> >> >>> >> to > >> >> >>> >> it > >> >> >>> >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. > >> >> >>> >> But I > >> >> >>> >> could > >> >> >>> >> also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a > >> >> >>> >> vibration in > >> >> >>> >> the fabric of space, > > >> >> >>> >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas > >> >> >>> >> wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy > >> >> >>> >>> is > >> >> >>> >>> matter > >> >> >>> >>> and matter is energy. > >> >> >>> >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be > >> >> >>> >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original creator > >> >> >>> >>>> was > >> >> >>> >>>> not > >> >> >>> >>>> matter, > >> >> >>> >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much faster and > >> >> >>> >>>> much > >> >> >>> >>>> easier > >> >> >>> >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns > >> >> >>> >>>> could > >> >> >>> >>>> have > >> >> >>> >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by selective > >> >> >>> >>>> processes to > >> >> >>> >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that > >> >> >>> >>>> patterns of > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. > > >> >> >>> >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they > >> >> >>> >>>> manipulated > >> >> >>> >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the information > >> >> >>> >>>> required > >> >> >>> >>>> for > >> >> >>> >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex > >> >> >>> >>>> intelligent > >> >> >>> >>>> beings > >> >> >>> >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where > >> >> >>> >>>> they > >> >> >>> >>>> came > >> >> >>> >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and > >> >> >>> >>>> purpose could > >> >> >>> >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. > > >> >> >>> >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas > >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an > >> >> >>> >>>>> infinite > >> >> >>> >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which > >> >> >>> >>>>> creation > >> >> >>> >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth > >> >> >>> >>>>> comes > >> >> >>> >>>>> closer. > > >> >> >>> >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain > >> >> >>> >>>>> > live > >> >> >>> >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ,but > >> >> >>> >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of > >> >> >>> >>>>> > the > >> >> >>> >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and > >> >> >>> >>>>> > nothing > >> >> >>> >>>>> > else. > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas > >> >> >>> >>>>> > <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > already > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > bodies > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > are > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrate > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > could > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > 'hope'. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > Such > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > able to > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > re- > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > make. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > This > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > would > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > intelligence > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > would > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > human > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > being > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > free > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > again. > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > part > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > of > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > our > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > behaviour now. > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> Allan > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > then > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > (my > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > grammar and > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > though)! > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > :) > > >> >> >>> >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <[email protected]> > > ... > > read more » --
