The Black Vault

Oh wait, I've got an even better one. Christianity and Atheism are locked in a perpetual soccer match and Atheism gets infinite free shots, but God keeps changing the score.

Gooooooooooool! Nope, back to zero.

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." ~ Douglas Adams

This is merely a discovery of the fifth force (aka LAW(L))

which has the ability to change equations (and other relations).

Equations are akin to mass.

5force is akin to any force which can repel (a la a 4-force)other equations (which are masses).

Equations : Mass
Manipulating Equations: Gravity (ergo anti-gravity is probable)

What's the least difficult subject to start with? I say
Time: Emit
Equations divided by Time (and in time): Velocity (mass divided by time)

This is the omniscience code. If you solve it, you are omniscient.

CodeBlackv2 wrote:I never hear spiritualists attacking science. However, I often hear rationalists, or is it just the activist atheists, attacking religion.

That's because no one can live without doing science, in some sense. You either accept science and religion, or just science. A life without religion is possible, but a life completely without science isn't.

Babies learn by a process akin to the scientific method, for a start.

If you attack science, you're basically admitting we do not live in a rational Universe, and few people take that stance these days. Science is proved by the very computer you're using, so in what way can it be attacked?

We know it works, proof is literally everywhere.

CodeBlackv2 wrote:Quantum Mechanics seems kooky because we're missing some of the facts and that brings up the point that science does rely on assumptions, quite a few in fact.

That itself is just an assumption on your part. There is no evidence at all that we are missing a key part that will make QM seem "unkooky".

CodeBlackv2 wrote:Christianity finds itself in a perpetual soccer match and the other team gets infinite free shots.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

CodeBlackv2 wrote:Hey, if the U ends in a black hole, maybe it began in a black hole, and the Gnostics got it right, cool.

If it started in a black hole, then you can't discount it coming from some dude's ass, I'm afraid

DIss0n80r wrote::shock:

hehe

at1with0 wrote:If you attack science, you're basically admitting we do not live in a rational Universe, and few people take that stance these days. Science is proved by the very computer you're using, so in what way can it be attacked?

We know it works, proof is literally everywhere.

For every good result from computers, you can find just as many bad results from them. Science did not make them very perfect at all, and the impact on humans is pretty negative in many respects.

I dunno how you messed that quote up, but that was from me not at1.

Imperfections in computers are more down to human error while building them and problems with the parts themselves than the theory behind how computers work. If science did not work computers would not function at all.

How many computers do you know that were built by prayer?

DIss0n80r wrote:"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle ..., frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. ..." ~ Douglas Adams

Neither God, nor Mother Nature, nor Science, nor anything else guarantees our safety. A belief in God does mean that we should site idly by as we are destroyed. Nobody is suggesting that, except Hollywood and a few fringe cults.

humphreys wrote:That's because no one can live without doing science, in some sense. You either accept science and religion, or just science. A life without religion is possible, but a life completely without science isn't.

You are comparing 2 things that don't go together. Our perceptions and beliefs are not a simple derivative of the laws of physics. We can live without a belief in science, did for thousands of years. You can live while rejecting religion but that's not the point. It not about what we can do, but what we should do.

humphreys wrote:Babies learn by a process akin to the scientific method, for a start.

This is nothing more than acknowledging that we respond to input and learn. That says nothing about religion or science. Science and religion are both philosophies.

humphreys wrote:If you attack science, you're basically admitting we do not live in a rational Universe, and few people take that stance these days. Science is proved by the very computer you're using, so in what way can it be attacked?

Um, no that is wrong. Science is a philosophy. The fact that we can make something work does not "prove science". I don't know what you mean by that. The universe operates by a set of rules. Neither science nor religion is proved or disproved by that. Religion says that God created those rules. Science has no answer to that question.

humphreys wrote:

CodeBlackv2 wrote:Quantum Mechanics seems kooky because we're missing some of the facts and that brings up the point that science does rely on assumptions, quite a few in fact.

That itself is just an assumption on your part. There is no evidence at all that we are missing a key part that will make QM seem "unkooky".

No, science admits that everything they say is based on at least some assumptions. Sounds like you are arguing the opposite side now. If QM seems kooky then that implies the science is wrong or at least incomplete, which it is, in the case of QM. And scientific assumptions have been wrong many times. The whole basis of science is that the final explanation should not seem kooky. Kooky = defies explanation.

humphreys wrote:

CodeBlackv2 wrote:Christianity finds itself in a perpetual soccer match and the other team gets infinite free shots.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Man, where have you been the last 20 years? The entire left wing intelligentsia, the film industry, the television industry, the entire mainstream news media, the public school system, the democrat party, and just about every pop-tard in the US has bashed Christianity for decades, and society has not demanded it stopped. Hell, even SNL has had skits about this since the 80's.