It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line about Pilate! :-)
On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
