• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

I rarely use AI summaries unless I can be at least reasonably certain that they do not contain errors. I’ll use this one because it is fundamentally correct though I have not checked the exact numbers, but I think those numbers are correct. Again, it bears repeating that relativity would be completely impossible in a world of real-time seeing.

Yes, the Global Positioning System (GPS) must account for both special and general relativity
to provide accurate location data. Without these relativistic corrections, GPS, which relies on precise timekeeping, would accumulate errors of about 10 kilometers (6 miles) per day.
GPS WorldGPS World +2
  • Special Relativity (Motion): Because satellites move at high speeds (~14,000 km/h), their clocks tick slower than ground-based clocks by about 7 microseconds per day.
  • General Relativity (Gravity): Because satellites are in a weaker gravitational field than observers on Earth, their clocks tick faster by about 45 microseconds per day.
  • Net Effect: The combined effect is that GPS satellite clocks run roughly 38 microseconds faster per day than clocks on the ground.
  • Correction: Engineers pre-adjust the satellite clocks to tick slightly slower at 10.22999999543 MHz (instead of 10.23 MHz) so they appear to tick at the correct rate when in orbit
 
Given all the evidence to the contrary, that anyone would make the claim that the eyes are not sense organs is more than a little odd.
No more odd than time dilation, if you think about it. :unsure:
It is not odd, it just is.

Do you make use of GPS in your car? It doesn't work unless there is containment for time dilation.
It has nothing to do with time dilation. The way it actually works does not conflict with his claim in any way.

How​

GPS adjusts and finds one's location by continuously receiving signals from multiple satellites. The system uses the time it takes for signals to travel from the satellites to the receiver to calculate the distance and determine the user's position. The process involves the following steps:
GPS has to do with clocks and timing of signals. Clocks in orbit run at differs speeds than on the ground. GPS and relatvity has been common knowledge since it began.

GPS satellites experience time dilation
due to high orbital speed (special relativity) and weaker gravity (general relativity), causing their atomic clocks to run about 38 microseconds faster per day than ground clocks. Without correcting for this, navigation errors would accumulate to 10 kilometers per day.
Key Time Dilation Effects on GPS:

Special Relativity (Velocity): Traveling at ~14,000 km/h, satellite clocks run ~7 microseconds slower per day.
General Relativity (Gravity): Being in weaker gravity (higher altitude) makes clocks run ~45 microseconds faster per day. Net Effect: The combined, or net, effect is that satellite clocks run roughly
38 microseconds faster
per day
.
Correction: Engineers shift the frequency of the atomic clocks on the satellites to be slightly lower before launch so they operate at the correct rate in orbit.

Without these corrections, GPS navigation would be unusable within hours.

There is nothing about this that conflicts with Lessans' claim of seeing in real time. Signal delay is a real thing and has to be used to get the right positioning, but it has NOTHING to do with the dilation of time itself. How could it when time is not a dimension that can be measured?

Ionospheric​

Ionospheric delay is a significant factor in GPS signal accuracy. It refers to the time delay experienced by satellite signals as they pass through the Earth's ionosphere, a layer of the atmosphere filled with charged particles. This delay can cause positional inaccuracies in GPS and other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). The delay is caused by the refractive index changes in the ionosphere due to the density of charged particles, which can be influenced by solar activity and time of day. To mitigate the effects of ionospheric delay, dual-frequency receivers are used, which can calculate and compensate for the delay using signals on different frequencies (e.g., L1 and L2 in GPS). Additionally, correction services like DGPS or SBAS (Satellite-Based Augmentation Systems) can provide real-time corrections to improve GPS accuracy.
OneSDR - A Wireless Technology Blog+2
The shotgun approach. Take broad shots and hope it hits something.

The spaghetti approach. Throw spaghetti at the wall and see if sone of it sticks.

Still does not make the book and author credible.

You call what pood says on science beliefs as if there is no objective basis, which there is. You are trying to say the book is as valid as established science.
 
There is nothing about this that conflicts with Lessans' claim of seeing in real time. Signal delay is a real thing and has to be used to get the right positioning, but it has NOTHING to do with the dilation of time itself. How could it when time is not a dimension that can be measured?

Good Lord!

Did you not even read the above article you are quoting????

Hint:

It contains separate sections on general and special relativity!

You are utterly hopeless. You will go to your grave believing in total nonsense.
 
From the intro to relativity in the article that peacegirl linked apparently without bothering to read it:

The theory of relativity introduces several effects that need to be taken into account when dealing with precise time measurements. According to special relativity, time passes differently for objects in relative motion. That is known as kinetic time dilation: in an inertial reference frame, the faster an object moves, the slower its time appears to pass (as measured by the frame's clocks). General relativity takes into account also the effects that gravity has on the passage of time. In the context of GPS the most prominent correction introduced by general relativity is gravitational time dilation: the clocks located deeper in the gravitational potential well (i.e. closer to the attracting body) tick slower.

:rolleyes:
 
Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.
 
You cannot abide by anything that would prove your god (Einstein) incorrect.
On the contrary, it is very clear from what he has written that Pood, like myself, would welcome such a thing.
But he MAY be incorrect with some of his theories.
He is almost certainly incorrect; Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Field Theory, and one or both of these theories must therefore be wrong.
His stature, though, doesn't allow anyone to question.
Practically the whole of physics in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has consisted of people questioning Einstein's theories. His public comments about quantum mechanics have mostly been shown to be incorrect and rash.
So then tell Pood to stop being so surprised that Lessans may prove Einstein wrong if his claim contravenes block universes and time dilation.
They are looked at as fools.
No. Fools are looked at as fools. Questioning Relativity by looking at as-yet untested areas for ways to reconcile it and QFT is a noble and worthy effort. Questioning Relativity by proposing internally contradictory twaddle is what gets people looked at as fools.
No, bilby, the first order of the day is to see if there is something to his claim. Until this is taken seriously and methodically tested, it isn't twaddle.
Who is right and who is wrong would depend on whether there is an actual conflict with some of Einstein's theories and Lessans' take on how we see,
Not really. The first test any idea must face is whether it is logically valid; The second whether it is logically sound. Only after passing these tests is it worth the effort to consider which of the competing ideas is better able to predict the outcomes of experimental observations.
The problem is the premise that we see in delayed time has already been established as logically valid and sound, but its soundness is being contested by a competing idea. Experimental observations, insofar as proof has not been established, therefore, it is not uncanny for another claim to be up for grabs.
and if there is, to determine who is right by studying both, not leaving Lessans out in the cold because it conflicts with Einstein.
Lessans is out in the cold because he conflicts with reason, logic, and reality. He isn't conflicting with Einstein; Only people with non-batshit ideas that contradict neither themselves, nor simple observations any schoolboy could make, can do that.
You are so off the mark bilby, it saddens me when you say that Lessans' claim conflicts with reason, logic, and reality. In fact, it astounds me that you could come to this conclusion because that reaction is not objective whatsoever. I have repeatedly said that you have to see whether his claim was correct, in its own right, and then reevaluate other established claims. You are doing it backwards, which is biased.
 
Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.
Pood is right, you are hopeless.

You arr trying to justify the belief that Lessans is as valid as current science.

Christian creationists try to do the same. Intelligent Design.

Do you believe photosynthesis works?

Photosynthesis converts light energy into chemical energy. This process uses sunlight to drive chemical reactions, converting carbon dioxide and water into glucose (a stored form of energy) and releasing oxygen. The light energy is primarily stored in the chemical bonds of glucose, a carbohydrate used for fuel.


To refute how the retina works you have to refute chemistry, quantum mechanics, and biology.

The optics of the eye are easy to demonstrate. The retina has been dissected land looked at with an electron microscope.

Rods and cones

1771948884141.png

1771948929928.png

Nerves have been thorough;y examined and physically tested.

Your question 'how do we know' is philosophical and mostly rhetorical, there is no answer.

When you have flown on a jet during the takeoff roll did you wonder if it would take off or just fall out of the sky for no reason?

Lie Christians who try to refute science, you ignore all the science you implicitly use and depend on without question.
 
Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.

View attachment 53669
t0 when light is swi
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

How the eyes and brain work together is perfectly understood. The Lone Ranger, who has dissected eyes, explained all of this down to the atomic level in a paper you admitted you did not read. Shall I try to fetch up the paper from you at FF?

By contrast, the claim that the brain is a “movie” projector that looks out through the “windows of the eyes” and “projects” something or other onto a “screen of undeniable substance” is not only unevidenced, it is idiot nonsense babble.
 
I don't have a communication problem.
Oh, you really, really do; But it is dwarfed by your denial problem, and your inability to reason problem; And these are symptoms of your believing things without evidence problem, which you are leveraging into your projection problem.
I don't have a denial problem and I don't have an ability to reason problem, leading to an evidence problem, which I'm leveraging into a projection problem. What a mouthful of nothing. :rolleyes:
 
It would be silly to argue that because I exist HERE, on earth, that Mars does not exist THERE, just not HERE.

Similarly, relativity, fusing space and time, shows that dinosaurs exist EARLIER than me, and future entities exist LATER than me. But we all exist on equal footing. And the problem is?
Well, if places that are a long way away actually exist, why can't I see them?
Because they are a long way away. Bingo! (y)
When I travel "between" England and Australia, they make me spend a day in a closed metal tube, which they tell me is a "flying machine", but as they only have tiny windows, and even those are covered up for much of the "flight", I have no reason to believe the thing actually flies*. They could easily arrange to project images onto the "windows", and just jolt the tube every so often to simulate "turbulence". While I am inside they have a whole day to get rid of the towns and cities, bring in some kangaroos and kookaburras, and turn up the thermostat.

If you try to open the window shade, the staff will make you close it again, which is a dead giveaway.

It's obvious that the only place that exists is where I am, and that "other places" are a conspiracy invented to sell airline tickets.
You have no reason to believe the thing actually flies other than having flown the same route 100 times before. I hope you get your money back. After all, they have fooled you into believing that you are going somewhere just to sell tickets, since "other places" don't really exist. The thing is, "other places" do exist, and "flying machines" help get us there. ✈️ :wink:
* I discretely tried to push one once, and it didn't budge at all. So they are obviously too heavy to fly. Of course, they got wise to that, and if you try to get close enough to try to push one of these so-called "airliners" these days, they arrest you and accuse you of being a terrorist. It's obvious they have something to hide.
They could get you to believe you are in a "flying machine" by simulating the sounds, images, temperature, and turbulence, but the giveaway is that the only place that exists is where you are, and where you are will be in Australia once the tube you're in actually takes off and arrives approximately 16-20 hours later. That silly example made me laugh, but I hope it wasn't a sneaky way to try to nullify real-time seeing. :oops:
My argument for the nonexistence of other places is at least as good as any arguments you have made for the nonexistence of other times.
It most certainly is not. We know on Earth that places exist because space exists and it takes time to get from one place to another. But to compare your cute airplane scenario with an argument for the nonexistence of other times doesn't fly (pun intended :))
 
Pg

Where in the diagram and when do we perceive an image relative to when the light is turned on?
I don't want to be repetitive. I have said enough times that we see an object instantly if it meets the requirements of sight (brightness and proximity or size).
Take your tie and think it through carefully. If you think I am missing something I will update the drawing.

Your question why believe eyeopeners as current science ssys it does? because it can be checked externally.

I had am MRI looking for a neural cause to my vision problem. The eye, retina, and nerves running to the barn;s vision center are well mapped. here is no mystery. We know if there is damage to particular areas in he brain vision is affected.
Yes, and that's why I showed the video where this guy lost his ability to recognize faces due to damage to the part of the brain that allows for word memory and retrieval. Did you watch it?


Every year I get a laser scan image of my retinas. High resurrection details.

There is no processing in the eye, only conversion from light to signals in the optic nerves. Image is constructed in the brain.
I have a problem with this one when you say "an image is constructed" from signals in the optic nerve. Can they see the image in an MRI by checking it objectively?
There is a rare condition where audio and optic nerves get entangled.Color vision changes with sound.

Lessan's theory also has to expin vision problems.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even relate because the direction we see doesn't change our anatomy.
Opticasl problems iike astigmatism. Retinsdamage like diabetic retinopathy. Nere and brain damage. My MRI was looking for inflammation of optic nerves.

Current science explains a lot, and most importantly leads to effective treatments for eye and vision problems.
I am not disputing any of this, only the direction we see, and if this upsets ophthalmologists or astronomers, I'm very sorry. That's not my intention. :( P.S. I wish you everything that science has to offer to help you with your eyesight. 🙏 Science is amazing when it works, and I have never said otherwise.
 
Pg, you could m,ake a study of how the eye works.


cone

1771951968818.png

1771952032715.png

Color vision.



Classes

Most vertebrates have several different classes of cone cells, differentiated primarily by the specific photopsin expressed within. The number of cone classes determines the degree of color vision. Vertebrates with one, two, three or four classes of cones possess monochromacy, dichromacy, trichromacy and tetrachromacy, respectively.

Humans normally have three classes of cones, designated L, M and S for the long, medium and short wavelengths of the visible spectrum to which they are most sensitive.[7] L cones respond most strongly to light of the longer red wavelengths, peaking at about 560 nm. M cones, respond most strongly to yellow to green medium-wavelength light, peaking at 530 nm. S cones respond most strongly to blue short-wavelength light, peaking at 420 nm, and make up only around 2% of the cones in the human retina. The peak wavelengths of L, M, and S cones occur in the ranges of 564–580 nm, 534–545 nm, and 420–440 nm, respectively, depending on the individual.[citation needed] The typical human photopsins are coded for by the genes OPN1LW, OPN1MW, and OPN1SW. The LMS color space is an often-used model of spectral sensitivities of the three cells of a typical human.[8][9]
Histology
The structure of a cone cell

Cone cells are shorter but wider than rod cells. They are typically 40–50 μm long, and their diameter varies from 0.5–4.0 μm. They are narrowest at the fovea, where they are the most tightly packed. The S cone spacing is slightly larger than the others.[10]

Like rods, each cone cell has a synaptic terminal, inner and outer segments, as well as an interior nucleus and various mitochondria. The synaptic terminal forms a synapse with a neuron bipolar cell. The inner and outer segments are connected by a cilium.[2] The inner segment contains organelles and the cell's nucleus, while the outer segment contains the light-absorbing photopsins, and is shaped like a cone, giving the cell its name.[2]

The outer segments of cones have invaginations of their cell membranes that create stacks of membranous disks. Photopigments exist as transmembrane proteins within these disks, which provide more surface area for light to affect the pigments. In cones, these disks are attached to the outer membrane, whereas they are pinched off and exist separately in rods. Neither rods nor cones divide, but their membranous disks wear out and are worn off at the end of the outer segment, to be consumed and recycled by phagocytic cells.
Distribution
Illustration of the distribution of cone cells in the fovea of an individual with normal color vision (left), and a color blind (protanopic) retina. Note that the center of the fovea holds very few blue-sensitive cones.
Distribution of rods and cones along a line passing through the fovea and the blind spot of a human eye[11]

While rods outnumber cones in most parts of the retina, the fovea, responsible for sharp central vision, consists almost entirely of cones. The distribution of photoreceptors in the retina is called the retinal mosaic, which can be determined using photobleaching. This is done by exposing dark-adapted retina to a certain wavelength of light that paralyzes the particular type of cone sensitive to that wavelength for up to thirty minutes from being able to dark-adapt, making it appear white in contrast to the grey dark-adapted cones when a picture of the retina is taken. The results illustrate that S cones are randomly placed and appear much less frequently than the M and L cones. The ratio of M and L cones varies greatly among different people with regular vision (e.g. values of 75.8% L with 20.0% M versus 50.6% L with 44.2% M in two male subjects).[12]
 
We can not go back to a previous state or to a future state of the inverse they do not exist.
We can't go back, but that doesn't mean the past doesn't exist, any more than the fact that we can't go to Sirius (and may never be able to) means that Sirius doesn't exist*.

I travelled here from 1970 to tell you that it is definitely possible to move forwards in time. In fact, stopping or slowing down seem to be fairly tricky.

I envisage myself moving through time like an asteroid moving through deep space; I move at a constant rate, because I cannot get any purchase on anything, so cannot apply any force to change my rate of progress on the T-axis.




* And interestingly, the Sirius I see when I look up at it tonight is Sirius in the past - on the 14th July 2019, to be precise. I may not be able to travel to the past, but as I can see the past with my own eyes, it seems perverse to say that it doesn't exist.

At FF, we explained to her that you could travel the far future in an arbitrarily short period of time as measured by the ship clock.

You could, for example, by accelerating to a certain fraction of c, age one year, but return to the earth as it is 50,000 years in the future.

Travel to the past? Closed timelike curves, if they exist.

These examples alone make it clear that the past and future exist along with the present. There is nothing privileged about the “present” — it’s an indexical, just like “here.”

She was outraged and incredulous when these things were explained to her at FF, and wholly and irrationally rejected them.
Clocks don't speed up or slow down time itself. Everything believed to be true must follow from sound premises, or the rest will fail, which we all know.

There is no such thing as “time itself.” The “passage” of time is measured by clocks, and clocks are observed to run slower in a frame moving relative to a rest frame. This is easily demonstrated by the thought experiment of a light clock, and has been observed to take place in nature and in the lab (muon decay). If relativity were not correct, our GPS would not work.

As usual you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, yet feel uninhibited in espousing utter bullshit.
Don't you see your own contradiction? If there is no such thing as "time itself," how can it be measured? And how can it slow down or speed up if there is no arrow of time? :oops:
 
Pg

Where in the diagram and when do we perceive an image relative to when the light is turned on?
I don't want to be repetitive. I have said enough times that we see an object instantly if it meets the requirements of sight (brightness and proximity or size).
Take your tie and think it through carefully. If you think I am missing something I will update the drawing.

Your question why believe eyeopeners as current science ssys it does? because it can be checked externally.

I had am MRI looking for a neural cause to my vision problem. The eye, retina, and nerves running to the barn;s vision center are well mapped. here is no mystery. We know if there is damage to particular areas in he brain vision is affected.
Yes, and that's why I showed the video where this guy lost his ability to recognize faces due to damage to the part of the brain that allows for word memory and retrieval. Did you watch it?


Every year I get a laser scan image of my retinas. High resurrection details.

There is no processing in the eye, only conversion from light to signals in the optic nerves. Image is constructed in the brain.
I have a problem with this one when you say "an image is constructed" from signals in the optic nerve. Can they see the image in an MRI by checking it objectively?
There is a rare condition where audio and optic nerves get entangled.Color vision changes with sound.

Lessan's theory also has to expin vision problems.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even relate because the direction we see doesn't change our anatomy.
Opticasl problems iike astigmatism. Retinsdamage like diabetic retinopathy. Nere and brain damage. My MRI was looking for inflammation of optic nerves.

Current science explains a lot, and most importantly leads to effective treatments for eye and vision problems.
I am not disputing any of this, only the direction we see, and if this upsets ophthalmologists or astronomers, I'm very sorry. That's not my intention. :( P.S. I wish you everything that science has to offer to help you with your eyesight. 🙏 Science is amazing when it works, and I have never said otherwise.


Did you miss the point yet again? The validity of any science is that it man ifests itself in the tangible physical reality. Non of te book does.

You said you are on a low carb diet. Because a doctor told you to or you read about it somewhere? Why believe a low carb diet will benefit you?
 
We can not go back to a previous state or to a future state of the inverse they do not exist.
We can't go back, but that doesn't mean the past doesn't exist, any more than the fact that we can't go to Sirius (and may never be able to) means that Sirius doesn't exist*.

I travelled here from 1970 to tell you that it is definitely possible to move forwards in time. In fact, stopping or slowing down seem to be fairly tricky.

I envisage myself moving through time like an asteroid moving through deep space; I move at a constant rate, because I cannot get any purchase on anything, so cannot apply any force to change my rate of progress on the T-axis.




* And interestingly, the Sirius I see when I look up at it tonight is Sirius in the past - on the 14th July 2019, to be precise. I may not be able to travel to the past, but as I can see the past with my own eyes, it seems perverse to say that it doesn't exist.

At FF, we explained to her that you could travel the far future in an arbitrarily short period of time as measured by the ship clock.

You could, for example, by accelerating to a certain fraction of c, age one year, but return to the earth as it is 50,000 years in the future.

Travel to the past? Closed timelike curves, if they exist.

These examples alone make it clear that the past and future exist along with the present. There is nothing privileged about the “present” — it’s an indexical, just like “here.”

She was outraged and incredulous when these things were explained to her at FF, and wholly and irrationally rejected them.
Clocks don't speed up or slow down time itself. Everything believed to be true must follow from sound premises, or the rest will fail, which we all know.

Instant vision is an unsound premise. An assumption that has no basis.
You keep saying that it has no basis because it sounds impossible, but it isn't.
 
I sometimes scroll this thread while only reading a few lines and while being amazed at the repetition, and I sometimes write what I call five minute poems, not great poetry but it takes me about five minutes to write them. And, though I tried not to post the following one here, I don't have much free will, so forgive me for putting it here. I couldn't help myself. This five minute poem was inspired by the old hit from the early 60s. called, "Go Away Little Girl", though it is kind of hard to sing it to that tune. Sorry.....maybe it I had taken ten minutes to write it, you could sing it. Oh well. As someone here said, There are only 24 hours in a day, but why does that someone spend so many hours here and why do so many encourage that someone? I guess it's evidence that free will either doesn't exist or it's complicated.

Please leave her alone



She needs to find a new home



Peace to you girl, now go away



and sell your book else where



No one's interested right here



Before you spout more BS



in this crazy, lenthy thread



Best to ignore what's been said



Go away Peace Girl..........................if you start with this line, you can sing it to Go Away Little Girl. At least I can. 🎶



Go away Peace Girl



There must be something



better for you to do



Nobody wants to read that book



so, please take a look



At how crazy you seem



Your dad's work is a dream



Find something better to do



This isn't helping you



So go away peace Girl



Before those attacking you



beg you to stay
Aww, that was so sweet that you want the best for me. I don't know if your poem is going to get anyone to stop the attacks or to get me to go away, but it was a good try. ;)

 
Einstein’s relativity in action — GPS.

As explained, GPS must take into account both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation.

Keeping in mind that the theory of relativity could not even have been formulated in a world of real-time seeing.
It has nothing to do with time dilation. And, as I said, you can't determine if he is wrong by concluding relativity is right. That's not how it works. Nothing as to how GPS systems work negates seeing in real time. They aren't even related. All you're doing is referring back to the properties of light and how it works, while Lessans was referring back to the properties of the brain/eyes and how they work.

Satellites in the GPS system work to recalculate GPS inaccuracies by continuously broadcasting signals and using the data received from multiple satellites to determine the user's location. The accuracy of GPS is influenced by several factors, including satellite geometry, signal blockage, atmospheric conditions, and receiver design features. To improve accuracy, GPS receivers can use correction techniques such as differential correction, which uses known distances between two or more receivers to enhance GPS readings. Additionally, the ongoing GPS modernization program aims to further improve accuracy for both civilian and military users.
Wikipedia+4
 
Last edited:
It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.
His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.
He has demonstrated his observations. Where have you been, DBT? :hallo:
 
It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.
His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.
I need another hand to count the errors you're making. I am not a Trumpster, so stop bringing this up, as if somehow this discovery is defined by who I vote for. :confused2:

The “discovery” is not defined by who you voted for. It is defined by the fact that it is not a discovery at all. It is just wrong.

And yes, you said a number of times at FF that you were a Trump supporter and voted for him, and I can find the posts.

There does seem to be a strong correlation between support for Trump and stupidity.
I never said I was a Trump supporter. I'm a democrat. I lived in Maryland, a democratic state, for most of my life. That doesn't mean I disagreed with all of Trump's views either. I don't side with the person; I side with their ideas if I'm in agreement. Your reasoning has gotten more and more warped. Have you forgotten that correlation is not causation?
 
It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.
His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.

It is not just that there is no evidence for it. It is that there is a mountain of evidence against it.

It is disheartening to see an adult so ill-informed about basic facts of reality. And of course she is a Trump voter. The U.S. in a lot of trouble. Don’t know how things are down in Australia.

In Australia the voting options lie between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Yeah, faith based beliefs are often held regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Gosh, you are from Australia, bilby is from Australia, I'm from America and Pood is from America. I'm not sure where Steve is from, but thanks to science and technology, we can all talk together wherever we live IN REAL TIME, or close to it. Simply amazing!! :notworthy:
 
Back
Top Bottom