Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Sep 2007 10:51:59 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 3:50 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190787222.026648.161850@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 26, 11:48 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190594566.094917.49740@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 23, 8:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190431800.577049.32660@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
innews:45g7f3trn1rufrko6vsmppmq333quufd53@4ax.com:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:45:52 GMT, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:50:29 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190254420.768829.51990@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Stop lying. You claimed that there was no evidence that
Jesus
didn't
exist when in reality ALL the evidence points to Jesus
being a complete fairy tale. Jewish historians said
nothing about a man
named
Jesus who was supposed to have cured the sick, raised the
dead and
fed
the multitude. Go figure.
Wrong. All the evidence only points to an atheist bias on
the part of your sources.
Once again, Oldridge is lying through his teeth. There is no
"atheist bias" outside the deluded fantasies of somebody who
can't grasp the sheer irrelevance of his most cherished
beliefs in the real world outside his religion.
Give it up, you lying piece of *****. You're a walking, talking
example of atheist bias.
Christopher Lee is, in fact, wrong. Atheists do have a bias.
We have a bias in favour of reality over fantasy.
No, you have a bias in favour of insisting that God does not exist
That's reality, fuckhead.
No, that's your opinion, *****-for-brains.
You're so full of ***** that daisies could grow out of your butt.
You're so full of ***** that if they spread your ashes over the Sahara
desert it would
become a rainforest. You're so full of ***** that a severe case of
diarrhea
would cause you to lose 90% of your body mass. You're so full of
***** that you could walk through a fertilizer factory and people could
still tell where you were from the odor you gave off.
The above is my opinion. But the existance is God is not a matter of
opinion. It's all based on myth and that's a fact.
It's based on reality, as you will eventually learn.
You mean when I go to your imaginary Hell? Your fantasies don't scare
me.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 01:15:24 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190908319.089632.182260@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:50 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190787222.026648.161850@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 26, 11:48 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190594566.094917.49740@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 23, 8:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190431800.577049.32660@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:58 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
innews:45g7f3trn1rufrko6vsmppmq333quufd53@4ax.com:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:45:52 GMT, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:50:29 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190254420.768829.51990@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Stop lying. You claimed that there was no evidence
that Jesus
didn't
exist when in reality ALL the evidence points to Jesus
being a complete fairy tale. Jewish historians said
nothing about a man
named
Jesus who was supposed to have cured the sick, raised
the dead and
fed
the multitude. Go figure.
Wrong. All the evidence only points to an atheist bias
on the part of your sources.
Once again, Oldridge is lying through his teeth. There is
no "atheist bias" outside the deluded fantasies of
somebody who can't grasp the sheer irrelevance of his most
cherished beliefs in the real world outside his religion.
Give it up, you lying piece of *****. You're a walking,
talking example of atheist bias.
Christopher Lee is, in fact, wrong. Atheists do have a bias.
We have a bias in favour of reality over fantasy.
No, you have a bias in favour of insisting that God does not
exist
That's reality, fuckhead.
No, that's your opinion, *****-for-brains.
You're so full of ***** that daisies could grow out of your butt.
You're so full of ***** that if they spread your ashes over the
Sahara desert it would
become a rainforest. You're so full of ***** that a severe case of
diarrhea
would cause you to lose 90% of your body mass. You're so full of
***** that you could walk through a fertilizer factory and people
could still tell where you were from the odor you gave off.
The above is my opinion. But the existance is God is not a matter
of opinion. It's all based on myth and that's a fact.
It's based on reality, as you will eventually learn.
You mean when I go to your imaginary Hell? Your fantasies don't scare
me.
Apparently neither does reality.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 09:34:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:15:24 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190908319.089632.182260@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:50 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
The above is my opinion. But the existance is God is not a matter
of opinion. It's all based on myth and that's a fact.
It's based on reality, as you will eventually learn.
You mean when I go to your imaginary Hell? Your fantasies don't scare
me.
Apparently neither does reality.
There you go again, claiming that your god and your hell are
objectively real, when you also claim that they aren't, and you
bristle when people call you a liar. What is it? There's a different
"truth" for each person you respond to?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 07:06:00 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:154qf3lv40ukq9l8ccuefn4cveqripm6un@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:15:24 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190908319.089632.182260@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 3:50 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
The above is my opinion. But the existance is God is not a matter
of opinion. It's all based on myth and that's a fact.
It's based on reality, as you will eventually learn.
You mean when I go to your imaginary Hell? Your fantasies don't
scare
me.
Apparently neither does reality.
There you go again, claiming that your god and your hell are
objectively real, when you also claim that they aren't, and you
bristle when people call you a liar. What is it? There's a different
"truth" for each person you respond to?
Not all of reality is objective at all times. You'll eventually
understand that.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 07:47:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 10:43:52 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another. For
example, I'm well aware that my environment is loaded with low-mass photons
of long wavelength, a lot of them due to various human activities.
This is true pretty much everywhere in the world, today, yet there are many
people who would call you a nut for suggesting such a thing.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 03:54:23 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 11:43 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another. For
example, I'm well aware that my environment is loaded with low-mass photons
Photons are massless.
of long wavelength, a lot of them due to various human activities.
This is true pretty much everywhere in the world, today, yet there are many
people who would call you a nut for suggesting such a thing.
Indeed. And they'd be right about you.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 03:05:47 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191315263.576934.268160@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:43 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so
you're either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
For example, I'm well aware that my environment is loaded with
low-mass photons
Photons are massless.
of long wavelength, a lot of them due to various human activities.
This is true pretty much everywhere in the world, today, yet there
are many people who would call you a nut for suggesting such a thing.
Indeed. And they'd be right about you.
But could they know they were right about me (even assuming they were)?
With the right apparatus and protocols, I can demonstrate easily the
existence of these photons. They have tangible effects many of which can
be translated into visual images and sounds.
So, if they were right, it would be for the wrong reason.
Oh, and they'd say the same about YOU if you said what I did above.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 08:22:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 03:06:28 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so
you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can be
presented to YOU, NOW.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 10:22:14 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so
you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can be
presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 03:00:10 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so
you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can be
presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and how
much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that right down
to the core? There's some interesting cognitive territory down there if
you do.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 09:52:35 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and how
much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that right down
to the core? There's some interesting cognitive territory down there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 11:06:43 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not,
so you're either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can
be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and how
much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that right
down to the core? There's some interesting cognitive territory down
there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that? Have you ever encountered a thought-
free reality? Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions
determined entirely by the observation?
And just how do you know it's not? I mean physical reality is highly
illusory in nature. We take our perceptions of it for granted but they
bear no strong connection to the real nature of the forces at work. I'm
sitting on a chair, but not really. The molecules of my rear are
adjacent to those of the chair and their electron shells, having the same
charge are repelling one another. The chair's electron shells are
transmitting that force down to the floor's and so forth. The chair, me,
the floor and the earth are all largely empty space, permeated by these
electrostatic fields that cause us to see and feel things. From the POV
of a solar neutrino, it's just a faint smoke.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 04:13:44 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not,
so you're either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can
be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and how
much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that right
down to the core? There's some interesting cognitive territory down
there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
Yes. If thoughts create reality, then reality would change
dramtatically as the direct result of every fleeting thought, which is
demonstrably not the case. There would be no shared perception,
because each individual would be trapped in their own created reality.
Have you ever encountered a thought-free reality?
it depends on what you mean by such an ambiguous question. I can't
divorce myself from my experience of reality, but I can, for example,
know that reality existed before I perceived it, and will continue to
exist after I'm gone.
Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions determined entirely by the observation?
Nope.
And just how do you know it's not? I mean physical reality is highly illusory in nature.
No, it isn't. if it were, there would be no common ground in which to
exist and communicate. The fact that we are able to communicate
demonstrates that we share essentially the same reality.
We take our perceptions of it for granted but they
bear no strong connection to the real nature of the forces at work.
Yes, in fact they do. If reality were illusory, and if we created our
own reality with our thoughts, we would be unable to communicate.
I'm sitting on a chair, but not really.
Yes, really.
The molecules of my rear are
adjacent to those of the chair and their electron shells, having the same
charge are repelling one another. The chair's electron shells are
transmitting that force down to the floor's and so forth. The chair, me,
the floor and the earth are all largely empty space, permeated by these
electrostatic fields that cause us to see and feel things. From the POV
of a solar neutrino, it's just a faint smoke.
None of which changes the fact that you're sitting in a chair. Unless
that's something else you're lying about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 06:04:34 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191705224.132892.111410@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or
not, so you're either wrong, or you're redefining
'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which
can be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and
how much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that
right down to the core? There's some interesting cognitive
territory down there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
Yes. If thoughts create reality, then reality would change
dramtatically as the direct result of every fleeting thought, which is
demonstrably not the case. There would be no shared perception,
because each individual would be trapped in their own created reality.
Have you ever encountered a thought-free reality?
it depends on what you mean by such an ambiguous question. I can't
divorce myself from my experience of reality, but I can, for example,
know that reality existed before I perceived it, and will continue to
exist after I'm gone.
And you know this because?
Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions determined
entirely by the observation?
Nope.
And you know this because?
And just how do you know it's not? I mean physical reality is highly
illusory in nature.
No, it isn't. if it were, there would be no common ground in which to
exist and communicate. The fact that we are able to communicate
demonstrates that we share essentially the same reality.
Perhaps, or the illusion is just shared and pervasive.
We take our perceptions of it for granted but they
bear no strong connection to the real nature of the forces at work.
Yes, in fact they do. If reality were illusory, and if we created our
own reality with our thoughts, we would be unable to communicate.
You're assuming a whole lot here, including the illusion that we are
entirely separate.
I'm sitting on a chair, but not really.
Yes, really.
No, my mind constructs the concept chair from the things my senses report
to it. But in reality what exists is just a cloud of electrons with no
exact positions or velocities with a few tiny nuclei scattered about in
it. A neutrino can go right through without encountering anything.
The molecules of my rear are
adjacent to those of the chair and their electron shells, having the
same charge are repelling one another. The chair's electron shells
are transmitting that force down to the floor's and so forth. The
chair, me, the floor and the earth are all largely empty space,
permeated by these electrostatic fields that cause us to see and feel
things. From the POV of a solar neutrino, it's just a faint smoke.
None of which changes the fact that you're sitting in a chair. Unless
that's something else you're lying about.
What it shows is that the chair and its solidity are largely a matter of
my sensory perception of it, rather than any intrinsic reality.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 05:32:21 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 12:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote innews:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not,
so you're either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can
be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and how
much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that right
down to the core? There's some interesting cognitive territory down
there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
What we think is real may seem real but it has absolutely nothing to
do with what other people experience unless it IS real.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 06:00:22 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191666741.916982.226640@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 12:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or
not, so you're either wrong, or you're redefining
'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which
can be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and
how much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that
right down to the core? There's some interesting cognitive
territory down there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
What we think is real may seem real but it has absolutely nothing to
do with what other people experience unless it IS real.
I used to think that. But then I learned that there are exceptions to
that rule. Pretty scary ones at times, too.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 11:50:43 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 7:00 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1191666741.916982.226640@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 12:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or
not, so you're either wrong, or you're redefining
'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which
can be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists and
denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real and
how much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really ponder that
right down to the core? There's some interesting cognitive
territory down there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
What we think is real may seem real but it has absolutely nothing to
do with what other people experience unless it IS real.
I used to think that. But then I learned that there are exceptions to
that rule. Pretty scary ones at times, too.
What you are describing is shared delusion. In that case, there is
something real, like a strange sound or a flash of light, and two
people share the same misinterpretation of the event. It happens.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 06:20:29 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191819043.785251.83170@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 7:00 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191666741.916982.226640@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 12:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or
not, so you're either wrong, or you're redefining
'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence
which can be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists
and denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real
and how much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really
ponder that right down to the core? There's some interesting
cognitive territory down there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
What we think is real may seem real but it has absolutely nothing
to do with what other people experience unless it IS real.
I used to think that. But then I learned that there are exceptions to
that rule. Pretty scary ones at times, too.
What you are describing is shared delusion. In that case, there is
something real, like a strange sound or a flash of light, and two
people share the same misinterpretation of the event. It happens.
Uh huh. You're about as convincing as those Nigerian scam emails.
How do you know your whole atheist position isn't just one big shared
misinterpretation of reality? Especially since you filter out some parts
that give you such a hard time by tagging them with labels like "shared
delusion."
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 09:10:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:20:29 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
How do you know your whole atheist position isn't just one big shared
misinterpretation of reality?
The "whole atheist position" is "we don't accept your assertion that
your god exists". That's not interpreting anything, so it can't be a
MISinterpretation.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 10:15:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:10:09 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:20:29 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
How do you know your whole atheist position isn't just one big shared
misinterpretation of reality?
The "whole atheist position" is "we don't accept your assertion that
your god exists". That's not interpreting anything, so it can't be a
MISinterpretation.
We're simply not theists. Why can't the moron leave it at that?
The moron knows this because he has been told it so often he stopped
being amusing long ago.
Does he really have to be so arrogantly, nastily stupid?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 07:00:41 PM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 7:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191819043.785251.83170@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 7:00 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191666741.916982.226640@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 12:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191595955.458886.303600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or
not, so you're either wrong, or you're redefining
'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to
another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence
which can be presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as long as reality exists
and denying reality is solipism.
Now there's a thought. How much of our reality is really real
and how much do we create with out thoughts? Ever really
ponder that right down to the core? There's some interesting
cognitive territory down there if you do.
Until you realize thoughts don't create reality.
Can you be absolutely sure of that?
What we think is real may seem real but it has absolutely nothing
to do with what other people experience unless it IS real.
I used to think that. But then I learned that there are exceptions to
that rule. Pretty scary ones at times, too.
What you are describing is shared delusion. In that case, there is
something real, like a strange sound or a flash of light, and two
people share the same misinterpretation of the event. It happens.
Uh huh. You're about as convincing as those Nigerian scam emails.
How do you know your whole atheist position isn't just one big shared
misinterpretation of reality? Especially since you filter out some parts
that give you such a hard time by tagging them with labels like "shared
delusion."
There's no shame in misinterpreting reality as long as you are dealing
with reality in the first place and not fantasies.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 11:03:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:00:22 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191666741.916982.226640@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
What we think is real may seem real but it has absolutely nothing to
do with what other people experience unless it IS real.
I used to think that. But then I learned that there are exceptions to
that rule.
And Napoleons living in the same places as those exceptions.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 07:37:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:06:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Can you be absolutely sure of that? Have you ever encountered a thought-
free reality? Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions
determined entirely by the observation?
That's solipsism, Dave, With whom are you having this discussion, if
it's all collapsing wave functions?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 06:05:41 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:khagg39nm51blnkvamp79c8q5acijl9kh3@4ax.com:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:06:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Can you be absolutely sure of that? Have you ever encountered a thought-
free reality? Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions
determined entirely by the observation?
That's solipsism, Dave, With whom are you having this discussion, if
it's all collapsing wave functions?
With myself?
No, I agree, solipsism is a slippery slope.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 11:05:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:05:41 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:khagg39nm51blnkvamp79c8q5acijl9kh3@4ax.com:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:06:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Can you be absolutely sure of that? Have you ever encountered a thought-
free reality? Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions
determined entirely by the observation?
That's solipsism, Dave, With whom are you having this discussion, if
it's all collapsing wave functions?
With myself?
But you don't really exist.
No, I agree, solipsism is a slippery slope.
For whom? There is no one - it's just us collapsing wave functions,
creating electronic simulations of reality.
Your slope slipped long ago.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 07:52:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:37:57 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:06:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Can you be absolutely sure of that? Have you ever encountered a thought-
free reality? Could it be that it's ALL collapsing wave functions
determined entirely by the observation?
That's solipsism, Dave, With whom are you having this discussion, if
it's all collapsing wave functions?
This is another standard theist dishonesty - instead of shutting up
when they can't put up they lapse into solipsism. Anything but admit
reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 08:41:30 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 4:00 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1191511334.495293.101110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:cmr5g3d2934gell8825cj8ghrbs83qfr08@4ax.com:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:43:52 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:f1r1g3dht930al0ej90au2h3u8dt9mrvvr@4ax.com:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:06:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not all of reality is objective at all times.
Reality exists whether there's someone to realize it or not, so
you're
either wrong, or you're redefining 'objective'.
Well, one person's objective may well seem non-existent to another.
Only if you redefine "objective evidence".
And you HAVE done so, defining it as only that evidence which can be
presented to YOU, NOW.
You're a liar. Objectivity exists as | | | | | | | | | | | |
