Crazy Bible Stories

[steve_bank]

The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

Nope. These are people who will make a distinction between Real Science and the science that leads places they do not want to go.
They define the split not because they can find fault in the process or the peer review, just the conclusions. And that's not a scientific objection.
So, yeah, creationists who use computers, or vaccinate, or drive cars, or engineer submarine launched ballistic missile telemetry pod transmitters can still be very obviously anti-science.

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

Luddites, those who reject technology, have been around since the 19th century.

In the 60s it was the counterculture 'get back to the land' mantra.

The Christian engines I worked with compartmentalized religion and science. Reject science backed evolution but would not design a bridge based on scripture.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The irony here it seems, is when you're looking from the view that on both religious and scientific terms, they seem to be quite extreme. It does look like science is accepted here.

Nope. These are people who will make a distinction between Real Science and the science that leads places they do not want to go.
They define the split not because they can find fault in the process or the peer review, just the conclusions. And that's not a scientific objection.
So, yeah, creationists who use computers, or vaccinate, or drive cars, or engineer submarine launched ballistic missile telemetry pod transmitters can still be very obviously anti-science.

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

Today on The Turing Test.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

Luddites, those who reject technology, have been around since the 19th century.

In the 60s it was the counterculture 'get back to the land' mantra.

The Christian engines I worked with compartmentalized religion and science. Reject science backed evolution but would not design a bridge based on scripture.

Lots of Amish in my neck of the woods. They do very inexpensive repairs on homes but you've got to watch them closely as they're not licensed contractors. They don't drive cars but they'll be driven in one. They use hammers, shingles, nails, all the things mass produced using electricity. They're very nice, generous people for the most part but their aversion to technology is lame.

They don't directly use devices that are associated with their faith beliefs, but indirectly use all those products brought about by the very things they eschew. They benefit greatly as a result. To me it's fake. It's as if I said I do not believe in the use of lawn chemicals, but if someone else applies it to my lawn that's okay. Where's the honesty in that?

 

[DBT]

A christian may profess brotherhood of man yet act quite contrary to that sentiment when it comes to business, perhaps not even being aware of the compromises being made.

 

[Learner]

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

Today on The Turing Test.

The Turing test has often been said to be too simplistic with devised limitations to produce results.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

Today on The Turing Test.

The Turing test has often been said to be too simplistic with devused limitations to produce results.

exactly what a Turing failure would say. Except with spelling.

 

[Learner]

Luddites, those who reject technology, have been around since the 19th century.

In the 60s it was the counterculture 'get back to the land' mantra.

Good note. Happy to exchange Luddites for Amish to suit.

The Christian engines I worked with compartmentalized religion and science.

Reject science backed evolution but would not design a bridge based on scripture.

I'm sure if a bridge was to be built and written in the scriptures they'd be measured in cubits.

They are just scientists that are not yet conviced with certain aspects of evolution. (it happens among scientists)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's a difference between those that have their scientists, who were formerly educated in the West, and those (oddly enough) who live in the West, who choose to live outside the modern world like the Amish for example. ( I more-or-less agree with the part about conclusions)

Today on The Turing Test.

The Turing test has often been said to be too simplistic with devised limitations to produce results.

Kind of like homeless bears.

 

[steve_bank]

Luddites, those who reject technology, have been around since the 19th century.

In the 60s it was the counterculture 'get back to the land' mantra.

Good note. Happy to exchange Luddites for Amish to suit.

The Christian engines I worked with compartmentalized religion and science.

Reject science backed evolution but would not design a bridge based on scripture.

I'm sure if a bridge was to be built and written in the scriptures they'd be measured in cubits.

They are just scientists that are not yet conviced with certain aspects of evolution. (it happens among scientists)

You are perenialy dancing around the issue. The fabtasic bible stories have no evidence other that that which was written thoisands of years ago.

Arguing science this and science that changes nothing. You are in denial. You accept ancient tall tales on faith regardless of what objective science says.

Just say 'I acknowledge what science says on bible evidence but I believe it anyway'. You will feel a lot better learner. You can not defend faith by rejecting science.

Just say it out loud to your self, 'I believe regardless of anything I see and hear'. At least be honest with yourself.

If you can not do that with sincerity and confidence then I would say you really do not understand or have faith.

 

[bilby]

The fact that "we don't know everything therefore we can't explain everything" is used to say science is fallible and based on a faith, therefore cretinism is equivalent to science in validity.

Science does not explain everything there fore god exists...and so on.

Our human limits does not imply the supernatural.

I get ya, you mean science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist?

(I jest)

Science says that all supernatural interactions with the physical universe at human scales are impossible. So yes; science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist.

I do not jest. But many a true word...

 

[skepticalbip]

But being bitten by a radioactive spider will still give you super spidey powers won't it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm no expert on Biblical stupidity but this one strikes me as pretty crazy. Is it a longer version of a previous post?

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Women are obviously property and not allowed to screw until after their dads deal them away. If they screw before that then they get stoned. But if Daddy's favorite man thinks he's getting used goods, Dad has a cloth to prove that his property is still a virgin and his son in law gets punished. And his son in law is bound to his daughter for as long as he lives.

So nothing about what women think is important, just make sure you stay a virgin so you don't get stoned to death.

Pretty violent stuff.

 

[Learner]

Good note. Happy to exchange Luddites for Amish to suit.



I'm sure if a bridge was to be built and written in the scriptures they'd be measured in cubits.

They are just scientists that are not yet conviced with certain aspects of evolution. (it happens among scientists)

You are perenialy dancing around the issue. The fabtasic bible stories have no evidence other that that which was written thoisands of years ago.

Arguing science this and science that changes nothing. You are in denial. You accept ancient tall tales on faith regardless of what objective science says.

Just say 'I acknowledge what science says on bible evidence but I believe it anyway'. You will feel a lot better learner. You can not defend faith by rejecting science.

Just say it out loud to your self, 'I believe regardless of anything I see and hear'. At least be honest with yourself.

If you can not do that with sincerity and confidence then I would say you really do not understand or have faith.

Dancing around? No sincerity and confidence? Do not understand faith?

I'd say my previous response was like-wise - dancing TO the style of tune YOU were making - in a manner of speaking, replying in similar logic fashion.

 

[Learner]

Science says that all supernatural interactions with the physical universe at human scales are impossible. So yes; science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist.

I'm not sure how you're seeing this. And what part of supernatural is impossible i.e. what dies it consist of IOWs? Genuine curiosity, I know you sort of explained something to a similar post but all I saw was a description of processes currently known which doesn't conflict either way.

I do not jest. But many a true word...

Indeed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm no expert on Biblical stupidity but this one strikes me as pretty crazy. Is it a longer version of a previous post?

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Women are obviously property and not allowed to screw until after their dads deal them away. If they screw before that then they get stoned. But if Daddy's favorite man thinks he's getting used goods, Dad has a cloth to prove that his property is still a virgin and his son in law gets punished. And his son in law is bound to his daughter for as long as he lives.

So nothing about what women think is important, just make sure you stay a virgin so you don't get stoned to death.

Pretty violent stuff.

I’m impressed with the level of detail for the single rule of law (nothing about being on the boat in the Great Flood) though surprised they didn’t tag the fine to inflation.

The other thing is if she was promiscuous, it was probably a priest that did it.

 

[bilby]

Science says that all supernatural interactions with the physical universe at human scales are impossible. So yes; science can explain some things so therefore, Gods cannot exist.

I'm not sure how you're seeing this. And what part of supernatural is impossible i.e. what dies it consist of IOWs? Genuine curiosity, I know you sort of explained something to a similar post but all I saw was a description of processes currently known which doesn't conflict either way.

I do not jest. But many a true word...

Indeed.

I am not sure what you are failing to understand.

EVERY possible interaction in Quantum Field Theory requires the existence of a particle with an appropriate mass. Energy and mass are equivalent, so if you put enough energy into one spot, ALL of the possible particles WILL arise with masses below that implied by the available energy (many of them will decay almost immediately, so you need some pretty impressive detectors; that's one reason why particle accelerator facilities such as CERN are very expensive indeed).

So we can put a lot of energy into a small volume (using a particle accelerator, for example), look at what particles arise, and be 100% sure that we know ALL of the possible interactions at or below that energy.

It's simply not possible for there to be any unknown interactions, except at higher masses/energies - which either implies very long distance forces (eg gravity, and the postulated 'dark matter' and/or 'dark energy' effects that modify the way galaxies hold themselves together); or very energetic interactions, which would vapourise a human who was subjected to them.

In short, the ONLY possible survivable interactions between a human being and anything else are: Electromagnetic; Gravitational; Weak Nuclear; and Strong Nuclear. All of these are well understood, and can be measured - and if there were any supernatural interactions via these four forces, we would see them. We don't.

So there are no interactions via the four forces; and there cannot be any unknown 'fifth force' that interacts with human scale matter without causing a massively destructive event that would be quite noticeable - if Aunty May's soul left her body, and this resulted in the demolition of the hospice, and widespread acute radiation sickness amongst people in the vicinity, I think we might have noticed.

So, for example, if you had a 'soul' that leaves the physical body at death, it could do so ONLY as a material object (a chunk of matter flying away); or as Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, X-rays, or similar); or as gravitational energy (an increased attraction to nearby large masses, such as the Earth); or as a nuclear level interaction (atomic decay of some kind). All of these possibilities would be easy to detect, and many would be easy to block, either deliberately or accidentally. None are a suitable candidate for a 'soul carrier' - a mode of interaction between the physical human and the hypothesized supernatural realm.

The best you can say about the supernatural is that if it exists, it cannot interact with physical entities at human scales in any way at all - so it cannot interact with humans, or with their environment. It's simply impossible for there to be a supernatural realm, or any supernatural beings, that can interact with humans, living, dead, or in-between.

It just so happens that physical reality is limited to interact in this way by the fundamental rules, such as equivalence of mass and energy, and quantum field interactions. These are our best tested scientific models, and they simply cannot be wrong enough to wedge in a supernatural element - in the same way that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation turned out not to be perfectly accurate, but it was nevertheless correct to say that heavy stuff won't fall upwards, so QFT and the equivalence of mass and energy could be wrong, but could not be wrong enough to allow for the existence of such supernatural postulates as a soul, or an interventionist god or gods, or a whole bunch of other woo nonsense.

You can believe that rocks sometimes fall up, if that makes you happy - but if you do, anyone who has a grasp of the scientific information available on the subject of gravity will think you are an idiot.

Likewise, you can believe in the existence of souls, gods, ghosts, life after death, etc., etc., but if you do, anyone who has a grasp of the scientific information available on the subject of quantum field theory will think you are an idiot.

Rocks that fall upwards don't exist. Nor do souls. These things are now known to be impossible. Welcome to the twenty first century.

 

[Gun Nut]

I'm no expert on Biblical stupidity but this one strikes me as pretty crazy. Is it a longer version of a previous post?

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Women are obviously property and not allowed to screw until after their dads deal them away. If they screw before that then they get stoned. But if Daddy's favorite man thinks he's getting used goods, Dad has a cloth to prove that his property is still a virgin and his son in law gets punished. And his son in law is bound to his daughter for as long as he lives.

So nothing about what women think is important, just make sure you stay a virgin so you don't get stoned to death.

Pretty violent stuff.

I met an older couple from Iran who practiced the tradition of "the cloth". A piece of ornate material that is handed down from mother to daughter is used to wipe the blood that is expected to appear on their wedding night after consummation. The daughter then presents the cloth to the parents of the husband on the following day... but she keeps it to give to her daughter to use on her wedding night some day.
They did that... they told me that people "cheat", because you can get blood "from anywhere". but the practice is still performed by some conservative muslims today. It's not done as a response to a challenge.. it's done as a matter of course.

 

[Learner]

I am not sure what you are failing to understand.

EVERY possible interaction in Quantum Field Theory requires the existence of a particle with an appropriate mass. Energy and mass are equivalent, so if you put enough energy into one spot, ALL of the possible particles WILL arise with masses below that implied by the available energy (many of them will decay almost immediately, so you need some pretty impressive detectors; that's one reason why particle accelerator facilities such as CERN are very expensive indeed).

So we can put a lot of energy into a small volume (using a particle accelerator, for example), look at what particles arise, and be 100% sure that we know ALL of the possible interactions at or below that energy.

I'm still not sure I understand HOW someone can KNOW that any entity, if so highly advanced (God if you will) wouldn't be able to interact with energy or forces we currently know. Oddly enough... on a somewhat minischule scale, "we can put a lot of energy into a small volume" as you say in the underlined above, which is also an interaction with forces to a lesser extent.

It's simply not possible for there to be any unknown interactions, except at higher masses/energies - which either implies very long distance forces (eg gravity, and the postulated 'dark matter' and/or 'dark energy' effects that modify the way galaxies hold themselves together); or very energetic interactions, which would vapourise a human who was subjected to them.

In short, the ONLY possible survivable interactions between a human being and anything else are: Electromagnetic; Gravitational; Weak Nuclear; and Strong Nuclear. All of these are well understood, and can be measured - and if there were any supernatural interactions via these four forces, we would see them. We don't.

Nobody knows what's still out there that's yet to be discovered , to then say that "its simply not possible"- implying we know that for God or a god to exist - they should be made of..or not made of... some unique material or non-material force to make the claim that such things are impossible.

What would you expect to notice IOW's?

So there are no interactions via the four forces; and there cannot be any unknown 'fifth force' that interacts with human scale matter without causing a massively destructive event that would be quite noticeable - if Aunty May's soul left her body, and this resulted in the demolition of the hospice, and widespread acute radiation sickness amongst people in the vicinity, I think we might have noticed.

Well, it seems we don't know enough and a new and bigger particle accelerator is on its way. I'm still unsure of the idea that you would still detect unkown forces "fith" forces interaction with the "human scale", AS IF we are certain to notice... what we think we know and what we think it looks like. Everything in the physical universe is effected or influenced on the most fundamental of sub levels not yet reached and currently beyond observation - going outwards from the utmost base level (what ever it is) or upwards from invisibilty (the hard-to-detect with current means) to the levels of visibilty, observed with our eyes.

So, for example, if you had a 'soul' that leaves the physical body at death, it could do so ONLY as a material object (a chunk of matter flying away); or as Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, X-rays, or similar); or as gravitational energy (an increased attraction to nearby large masses, such as the Earth); or as a nuclear level interaction (atomic decay of some kind). All of these possibilities would be easy to detect, and many would be easy to block, either deliberately or accidentally. None are a suitable candidate for a 'soul carrier' - a mode of interaction between the physical human and the hypothesized supernatural realm.

This is what I mean. You DO seem to KNOW what 'supernatural' would consist of and HOW it would react or interact. This is 'what I am unsure of', and strangly enough - you (plural) would accept undetectable dark-matter with the proposition that dark matter affects the visible universe!

(I remember some years ago the Electric-universe-theory seemed to be at the time, a better explanation model ... if it still stands)

The best you can say about the supernatural is that if it exists, it cannot interact with physical entities at human scales in any way at all - so it cannot interact with humans, or with their environment. It's simply impossible for there to be a supernatural realm, or any supernatural beings, that can interact with humans, living, dead, or in-between.

It just so happens that physical reality is limited to interact in this way by the fundamental rules, such as equivalence of mass and energy, and quantum field interactions. These are our best tested scientific models, and they simply cannot be wrong enough to wedge in a supernatural element - in the same way that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation turned out not to be perfectly accurate, but it was nevertheless correct to say that heavy stuff won't fall upwards, so QFT and the equivalence of mass and energy could be wrong, but could not be wrong enough to allow for the existence of such supernatural postulates as a soul, or an interventionist god or gods, or a whole bunch of other woo nonsense.

Again as my above response, I place here too.

You can believe that rocks sometimes fall up, if that makes you happy - but if you do, anyone who has a grasp of the scientific information available on the subject of gravity will think you are an idiot.

Likewise, you can believe in the existence of souls, gods, ghosts, life after death, etc., etc., but if you do, anyone who has a grasp of the scientific information available on the subject of quantum field theory will think you are an idiot.

Rocks that fall upwards don't exist. Nor do souls. These things are now known to be impossible. Welcome to the twenty first century.

A fair point of view - noted

 

[bilby]

I'm still not sure I understand HOW someone can KNOW that any entity, if so highly advanced (God if you will) wouldn't be able to interact with energy or forces we currently know. Oddly enough... on a somewhat minischule scale, "we can put a lot of energy into a small volume" as you say in the underlined above, which is also an interaction with forces to a lesser extent.



Nobody knows what's still out there that's yet to be discovered , to then say that "its simply not possible"- implying we know that for God or a god to exist - they should be made of..or not made of... some unique material or non-material force to make the claim that such things are impossible.

What would you expect to notice IOW's?

So there are no interactions via the four forces; and there cannot be any unknown 'fifth force' that interacts with human scale matter without causing a massively destructive event that would be quite noticeable - if Aunty May's soul left her body, and this resulted in the demolition of the hospice, and widespread acute radiation sickness amongst people in the vicinity, I think we might have noticed.

Well, it seems we don't know enough and a new and bigger particle accelerator is on its way. I'm still unsure of the idea that you would still detect unkown forces "fith" forces interaction with the "human scale", AS IF we are certain to notice... what we think we know and what we think it looks like. Everything in the physical universe is effected or influenced on the most fundamental of sub levels not yet reached and currently beyond observation - going outwards from the utmost base level (what ever it is) or upwards from invisibilty (the hard-to-detect with current means) to the levels of visibilty, observed with our eyes.

So, for example, if you had a 'soul' that leaves the physical body at death, it could do so ONLY as a material object (a chunk of matter flying away); or as Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, X-rays, or similar); or as gravitational energy (an increased attraction to nearby large masses, such as the Earth); or as a nuclear level interaction (atomic decay of some kind). All of these possibilities would be easy to detect, and many would be easy to block, either deliberately or accidentally. None are a suitable candidate for a 'soul carrier' - a mode of interaction between the physical human and the hypothesized supernatural realm.

This is what I mean. You DO seem to KNOW what 'supernatural' would consist of and HOW it would react or interact. This is 'what I am unsure of', and strangly enough - you (plural) would accept undetectable dark-matter with the proposition that dark matter affects the visible universe!

(I remember some years ago the Electric-universe-theory seemed to be at the time, a better explanation model ... if it still stands)

The best you can say about the supernatural is that if it exists, it cannot interact with physical entities at human scales in any way at all - so it cannot interact with humans, or with their environment. It's simply impossible for there to be a supernatural realm, or any supernatural beings, that can interact with humans, living, dead, or in-between.

It just so happens that physical reality is limited to interact in this way by the fundamental rules, such as equivalence of mass and energy, and quantum field interactions. These are our best tested scientific models, and they simply cannot be wrong enough to wedge in a supernatural element - in the same way that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation turned out not to be perfectly accurate, but it was nevertheless correct to say that heavy stuff won't fall upwards, so QFT and the equivalence of mass and energy could be wrong, but could not be wrong enough to allow for the existence of such supernatural postulates as a soul, or an interventionist god or gods, or a whole bunch of other woo nonsense.

Again as my above response, I place here too.

You can believe that rocks sometimes fall up, if that makes you happy - but if you do, anyone who has a grasp of the scientific information available on the subject of gravity will think you are an idiot.

Likewise, you can believe in the existence of souls, gods, ghosts, life after death, etc., etc., but if you do, anyone who has a grasp of the scientific information available on the subject of quantum field theory will think you are an idiot.

Rocks that fall upwards don't exist. Nor do souls. These things are now known to be impossible. Welcome to the twenty first century.

A fair point of view - noted

Gravity and quantum field theory are facts. They are not a 'point of view', your options are:

a) Accept them; or
b) Be wrong.

It's not my 'point of view' that rocks don't fall upwards. It's not an opinion, nor is it amenable to alternative interpretations.

I don't need to know what some hypothetical supernatural realm is made of or interacts with. I know all the things that the natural world can possibly interact with at human scales, and the supernatural isn't on that list. Case closed.

I realise that you don't want to understand this. But that doesn't make it any less true, and I honestly don't want you to take my word for it - learn the physics, and see for yourself.

Until you do that, your response is just incoherent babble, because you are not competent to understand that which you seek to refute.

I have explained it to you. You don't want to believe it, nor even to understand it. I can do no more, until and unless you choose to live up to your screen name.

 

[Learner]

Gravity and quantum field theory are facts. They are not a 'point of view', your options are:

a) Accept them; or
b) Be wrong.

It's not my 'point of view' that rocks don't fall upwards. It's not an opinion, nor is it amenable to alternative interpretations.

My bad for using just few words there. I meant in "point of view" that you make the suggestion that I believe "rocks fall upwards". I do know why you use the term to which I disagree with - as being the same thing as believing in faith.

I don't need to know what some hypothetical supernatural realm is made of or interacts with. I know all the things that the natural world can possibly interact with at human scales, and the supernatural isn't on that list. Case closed.

You don't need to know what a supernatural 'is made of'... but you make a hypothesis and use it as a factual knowledge claim - why interactions by God or a god is "proved" to be impossible.

I realise that you don't want to understand this. But that doesn't make it any less true, and I honestly don't want you to take my word for it - learn the physics, and see for yourself.

Until you do that, your response is just incoherent babble, because you are not competent to understand that which you seek to refute.

I have explained it to you. You don't want to believe it, nor even to understand it. I can do no more, until and unless you choose to live up to your screen name.

Ah ok, I thought you could notice my curiosity in my previous post. Just trying to understand the sense of it (with my limited logic).

Personally I don't think physics (soley on its own without the other sciences especially ) will tell us anytime soon - at least at the moment, either way.