Scientific proof of God's existence.

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 28th, 2017, 10:06 am 

Can I just guess what it says instead ? Where is the fun in just speaking to me in a normal way :(

Haha! Okay ... Later.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 29th, 2017, 6:18 am 

I guess you mean "image" then? You "imagine" rather than actually "see"?

After enough practice I guess this would become such a habit as to be a normal way of viewing the world.

I still don't see what this has to do with anything though or exactly what you mean by it as a proof of God (I am still waiting for a definition of "God".)

As for "perspective" I have always been fascinated by this. My friends always used to think I was strange for saying how weird it is that when I move my head things closer move more than things in the distance. For me this is still very much such an obvious experience for people that they tend to be completely blind to it.

I guess these kinds of thoughts, that I have had since a young age, are the reason I find phenomenology to be a good source of terms for the kind of things I wish to investigate and discuss.

I just want to understand what you've said more clearly. When you talk about "lower" and "higher" you also refer to paving stones and I guess you mean not simply "up" and "down" but distance in general?

It would also help me a great deal if you used a more technical term than "diagonally". This is not a very explicit term and it could easily lead us (the ones listening) astray.

We all know music is emotional. In fact, everything is emotional. We feel something about something not nothing about something. That is what makes something "some thing".

There are certain tones that cause clear physiological reactions in humans. Certain tones are well known by movie makers and used to induce a sense of suspense and fear in horror movies especially (I am guessing you're aware of this already?)

There are also other affects of the senses. In a red environment we perceive time as moving more slowly (this is a physiological response) and in blue environments time moves more quickly for us. Then there are other sensory inputs that affect us that we don't really understand too well. Some people are affected by electric pylon and wifi signals. The evidence for this looks pretty clear to me but only a few people really suffer from these effects (some to the point of suicide - although this may not be the key factor and there could be other social factors at play.)

We've long known about mathematics and music. I am still at a loss as to what your point is?

IF you wish to be cryptic then I will answer your tongue in cheek question with my own cryptology ... Am I human? No. But I am human in the colloquial sense of the term and the genetic sense of the term (as far as I know!). Other than that I am not human at all, anymore than anyone else is. I mean this in the sense of you being "American" or whatever national identity you're told you are.

Also I should add I am not "religious". I don't read the bible and the number of times I have been in a church I can count on one hand.

What do you think about the gospels left out of the bible? Are they irrelevant because the institution of "The Church" chose not to put them in? I am of course referring to Judas being part of Jesus's plan, this is assuming that Jesus existed about which I am not 100% convinced given that the general mythological stories surrounding him predate his supposed existence and are parroted across the globe among different traditions (which to me does at least show something truly "human" and worth taking note of.)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 29th, 2017, 11:56 am 

BadgerJelly:

“I guess you mean "image" then? You "imagine" rather than actually "see"? After enough practice I guess this would become such a habit as to be a normal way of viewing the world.”


No Badger, “see” - literally “SEE,” and – also and EXACTLY simultaneously, NOT “imagine,” because, EVERYTHING is EXACTLY infinitely “sdrawkcab,” as I told my older brother, Jim, who has received a very extensive formal education, while – simultaneously, I have received absolutely none.

Ok, so as I told my brother, I did get kicked out of school, while – simultaneously, he did not, and so then I learned everything through my exposure to reality, while – simultaneously, he learned (most everything) abstractly, and/or through what he was told, by all his “teachers.”

Ok, so, through my exposure to reality, I did then learn how to produce the literal visual musical equivalents, which are – simultaneously, the definition of the Mind of God made manifest, and which I developed an “understanding of,” while – simultaneously, because my brother did not spend (hardly) any time out in four dimensional reality, he did NEVER become capable of developing the precursory neural pathways that are required to “SEE” the Mind of God, as Jesus of Nazareth did explain:

“He also said, 'This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man throws seed on the land. Night and day, while he sleeps, when he is awake, the seed is sprouting and growing; how, he does not know. Of its own accord the land produces first the shoot, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. And when the crop is ready, he loses no time: he starts to reap because the harvest has come.” Mark 4: 26-29

And as twentieth century “neuroscience” has confirmed:

“...by virtue of its morphological identity – each spine (neuron) may be regarded as a functional unit, interacting with other spine units (while) the wide range of spine shapes and sizes reflect ongoing dynamic changes in spine excitability (with) properties dependent on frequency of synaptic input. Different spine shapes (and effectuated) spine geometry may thus reflect different stages of spine maturation.” Gordon M. Shepard – Apical Dendritic Spines of Cortical Pyramidal Cells

Ok, so I did develop the “neurophysiological functioning capabilities” - within my three dimensional mind and parallel functioning central nervous system, actually effectually functioning as “effectuated” “simultaneously relative four dimensional projective geometry” - CAUSING “permanently effectuated simultaneously relative four dimensional 'geometrical' changes,” within my three dimensional electrical potential mind, and parallel functioning central nervous system, and - exactly because my mind was “programmed” ONLY through my exposure to reality, I did also – and simultaneously, develop the neurophysilogical capability to “understand reality,” being “abstractly communicated,” and/or THIS:

“Psychopaths seem to know the dictionary meanings of words but fail to comprehend or appreciate (OR 'experience') their emotional value or significance (while functioning as if) he knows the words but not the music. Recent laboratory research provides convincing support for these clinical observations. This research is based on evidence that, for normal people, neutral words generally convey less information (less understanding of reality) than do emotional words: A word such as PAPER has a dictionary meaning, whereas a word such as DEATH has a dictionary meaning plus emotional meaning, and unpleasant connotations. Emotional words have more 'punch' than do non emotional words. Picture yourself at a computer screen on which groups of letters are flashed for a second. Electrodes for recording brain responses have been attached to your scalp and connected to an EEG machine, which draws a graph of the electrical activity of the brain. Some of the groups of letters flashed up on the screen form common words found in the the dictionary; other strings no words, only nonsense syllables. For example, TREE forms a word but RETE does not. Your task is to push a button as quickly as possible whenever you have decided that a true word has appeared on the screen. The computer measures the time that it takes you to make your decisions; it also analyses your brain responses during the task. You will probably respond more quickly to an emotional word than to a neutral one. For example, you would probably push the button quicker at the word DEATH than the word PAPER. The emotional content (and real word) seem to give the words a sort of 'turbo-boost' to the decision making process. At the same time, the emotional words evoke larger brain responses than do neutral words – When we used this laboratory test with prison inmates, the non-psychopaths showed the normal pattern of response – BUT the psychopaths did NOT: They responded to emotional words as if they were neutral words – to a psychopath, a word is just a word...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

Ok, so because I “learned” everything ONLY through my exposure to reality, while – simultaneously, anyone who has only received a formal, abstract education will have not, I CAN DO this:

“When we used this laboratory test with prison inmates, the non-psychopaths showed the normal pattern of response – BUT the psychopaths did NOT: They responded to emotional words as if they were neutral words – to a psychopath, a word is just a word.”

Or, in other words, I do NOT “do” this:

“I guess you mean "image" then? You "imagine" rather than actually "see"? After enough practice I guess this would become such a habit as to be a normal way of viewing the world.”


I do NOT “lie,” and/or use “words” in an attempt to “imply” a double meaning, and/or in an attempt to influence the thought processes of any other human beings.

Ok, simply – I learned how to produce the “visual musical equivalents,” and which are also – and exactly simultaneously, the literal definition of: “art” - “pictorial syntax” - “intelligence” - “the fourth dimension” - “Einstein's relativity” - “music” - “pictorial equivalent of Mozart” - “emotions” - “harmony” - “thought” - “Life” - “reality” - “the Mind of God” - “the Kingdom of Heaven” - “cosmic symphony” - “four dimensional space/time” - “space/time continuum” - “grand unification theory,” and I “KNEW” it, because I “SAW” all those things – OUT IN REALITY.

Ok, but because I did NOT know the “words” - remember, because I had no “formal education” - and/or NO “exposure to abstractions” at all, I went “looking” for all of the people who were claiming, in WORDS, to have “developed an understanding” of all of those things, as well – but, who also knew the “words” to “abstractly communicate the particulars,” and that is when I learned – through this:

“But when the Spirit of truth comes
he will lead you to complete truth,
since he will not be speaking as from himself
but will say only what he has learned;
and he will tell you of things to come.
He will glorify me,
since all he tells you
will be taken from what is mine.
Everything the Father has is mine;
that is why I said:
All he tells you
will be taken from what is mine.”
John 16: 5-15

That they: the “Art world,” are ALL only these:

“...to a psychopath, a word is just a word...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

They are ALL lying, scum sucking, pig, psychopaths, just like the Son of God explained:

“If God were your father, you would love me
since I have come from God; yes, I have come from him;
not that I came because I chose,
no, I was sent, and by him.
Do you know why you cannot take in what I say?
It is because you are unable to understand my language.” John 8: 42 -43

Because they can not “understand the language of reality,” but – simultaneously, they are master manipulating psychopathic con artists, just like the Son of God explained:

“Alas for you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who shut up the kingdom of heaven in men's faces, neither going in yourselves nor allowing others to go in who want to.” Matthew 23: 13

“Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who are like white-washed tombs that look handsome on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of corruption. In the same way you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” Matthew 23: 28

So, what happened was, my brother said to me:”You use the word 'literally' for everything,” and I said:”Yeah, because they – the 'Art' world, use all the words that mean the EXACT opposite of what they tell the world they mean.”

Such as: “SEE,” and “IMAGINATION.”

Ok, so this is what I mean by “see,” I'll identify the “vector” function, as an example.

Ok, so in order to explain the vector function, that I developed the ability to “see” - NOT “imagine,” we need to identify a function of sight that has not been fully explained, yet – which enables the introduction of a new kind of calculus, trigonometry, and projective – real time, geometry, which is this fact: Ok, so we know how the function of sight works, we put light, and/or quantized radiant electromagnetism, on a scene, and then the “non tangible form” images, of all of the the tangible form three dimensional things located within three dimensional space, have their images “projected” from their points/positions – located within identifiable four dimensional space/time, and to our identifiable point/position located within identifiable four dimensional space/time, everyone knows this fact, but here is the part they left out: Human beings can only focus upon 1 single two degree point while at any 1 single point within simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, and such as this single point, of: 'A,' located at an identifiable point/position – within identifiable simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, BUT – while we remain “focused” upon that single two degree point – located within identifiable simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, we can “see” all of the remaining points/positions - also located at all of the identifiable simultaneously relative points/positions within simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, which is a function no one has fully explained before.

Ok, so which means, that while we remain “focused” upon THIS single point, of: 'A,' located at an identifiable point/position within identifiable simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, we can also “see” - simultaneously, THIS point, of 'B,' also located at an identifiable point/position within identifiable simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, and which means, that while we remain “focused” upon this single point/position, of 'A,' the – VERY REAL, non tangible form image of this point, of: 'B,' must have its “real” - “perceivable,” non tangible form image “projected” “from” it's point/position – located at an identifiable point/position – within identifiable simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, and “to” the point/position that we are “focused upon,” of: 'A,' and/or the very real: single vanishing point, of:'A,' located at a point/position upon this two dimensional plane, which is only an abstraction, and/or this:

“Psychopaths mental packages are not only small, but they're (ONLY) 'two-dimensional,' devoid of emotional meaning – Lying, deceiving and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths. With their powers of imagination in gear, and focused on themselves, psychopaths seem amazingly unfazed by the possibility, or even the certainty, of being found out – When caught in a lie, or challenged with the truth, they are seldom embarrassed or perplexed – they simply rework their stories so that they appear to be consistent with the lie...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

But which is also while being made manifest, as a very “REAL,” one of these:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366& ... AQkQhyYIKQ

And which is “what “ I developed the ability to “SEE,” literally.

And which is also a “developed neurophysilogical functioning capability” that is required – for an individual to become capable of developing, to become capable of “experiencing” - and/or “seeing,” THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jremlZvNDuk

And this as well, which I needed to “invent a new math,” to explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW6JFKgbAF4
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 29th, 2017, 12:29 pm 

I will ask you again because we seem to be banging heads over terminology here.

Again, let me refer to synesthesia. Let me define this term for you as I understand it. Synesthesia is the ability to cross certain perceptions. Examples would include people seeing visual representations of sounds, tastes represented as sounds, texture represented as colours.

Surely you can understand my confusion here? When you say you literally see music, this means to me that you literally see sounds. Which is by the definition I have set out here what synesthesia is.

I think I get the gist of why you are using quotes from bible. I have picked up on the same thing before expressed not just in the bible, but also in many differing texts.

You interest me because I once was able to "READ" everything around me. I use parenthesis because I cannot quite explain it in any kind of tangible language. "READ" seems like the most appropriate placeholder though.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 29th, 2017, 3:52 pm 

Don Juan:

Don Juan » July 27th, 2017, 3:28 pm wrote:
MrMikeludo » July 27th, 2017, 5:29 pm wrote:In addition, Don Juan, posed multiple questions to me, and I DID answer them “succinctly,” and, then, Don Juan felt as if I did not elaborate (or so it appeared to me), and, again, which is “why” I answered at such great length, while KNOWING – in the past, such a “post” has been “omitted” on other sites, and after I SPENT 5 HOURS WORKING ON IT, so, again – Let me know NOW, if THAT is going to be happening, please.


How specifically did you know that I felt as if you did not elaborate when what I was asking was how would you rate your answers to my questions?

How specifically did you know that you answered the questions succinctly?

Did it not occur to you that I was checking your sense of criteria and judgment?

Clarity and completeness it seems to me are not so much about more words and more explanations, MrMikeludo.

But I feel a sense of wonder about your behavior. If I can have more time, your ways of thinking and patterns can be a good piece of point of study and exploration. It's interesting to trace where the distortions are created, because you follow a consistent pattern, persistent, with some flexibility and variety.


You see, I asked you not to "let yourself be swayed."

So, read it again:

"In addition, Don Juan, posed multiple questions to me, and I DID answer them 'succinctly,' and, then, Don Juan felt as if I did not elaborate (or so it appeared to me) "

You see, I "specifically" "said" this:"OR SO IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME..."

You see?

Ok, so anyways, I knew trying to explain the function of "time made manifest" would be difficult, without a demonstration, so I made THIS "Video for Don Juan:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLeVqw3Vwo0
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 30th, 2017, 10:09 am 

BadgerJelly:

BadgerJelly » July 29th, 2017, 12:29 pm wrote:I will ask you again because we seem to be banging heads over terminology here.

Again, let me refer to synesthesia. Let me define this term for you as I understand it. Synesthesia is the ability to cross certain perceptions. Examples would include people seeing visual representations of sounds, tastes represented as sounds, texture represented as colours.

Surely you can understand my confusion here? When you say you literally see music, this means to me that you literally see sounds. Which is by the definition I have set out here what synesthesia is.

I think I get the gist of why you are using quotes from bible. I have picked up on the same thing before expressed not just in the bible, but also in many differing texts.

You interest me because I once was able to "READ" everything around me. I use parenthesis because I cannot quite explain it in any kind of tangible language. "READ" seems like the most appropriate placeholder though.


NO - “SEE,” literally “SEE,” just like this: Look at this “demonstration of perspective:”

http://mydrawingtutorials.com/drawing-a ... rspective/

Ok, so you see how the artist is “drawing” the “IMAGINARY” “lines” - which represent the ”projections” of the: windows – doors – walls – etc, well I “developed the ability” to LITERALLY “SEE,” all of those “projections,” which is – EXACTLY, “what” I was referring to when I wrote this:

“It's like giant three dimensional cogs of a machine,
worked until they form a union,
a flow,
a movement through space.”

And not only that, but I also developed the ability to “see” the “projections” made manifest from the notes/fundamental frequency modulations – that are “projected” “to” and “from” the purposefully effectuated “point time zero."

And which is EXACTLY “how” I can know that all of those projections are made manifest as “projected vectors,” because – remember, I was kicked out of school, so, obviously, I had never heard of a vector, PRIOR to my developing the ability to literally “see” them.

In addition, because I developed the literal ability to “SEE” the notes/fundamental frequency modulations, actually effectually “functioning” “within” simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time, that is how – and ONLY how, I “know” their simultaneously relative “derivative” function, while actually effectually functioning as a simultaneously relative “POINT” “where” a persons LITERAL “movement” can be “purposefully redirected” - WITHIN the literal perimetered central keynote theme – OF the LITERAL “cosmic symphony,” that Michi Kaku was referring to.

In addition to THAT, and even more interesting, is that a when a person does develop this capability, to, EXACXTLY as the Son of God explained:

“Alas for you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who shut up the kingdom of heaven in men's faces, neither going in yourselves, nor allowing others to go in who want to.” Matthew 23:13

LITERALLY “enter” the “kingdom of heaven,” they must also – and simultaneously, develop the neurophysiological - simultaneously parallel functioning MIND and BODY, capability, to LITERALLY “move” into the Kingdom of heaven.

And – NO, that does NOT mean to “imagine” moving into the kingdom of heaven, and/or to “walk” into the kingdom of heaven, and/or “move your eyes” from the ground, up towards the kingdom of heave, and/or to simply “see” the kingdom of heaven, it means LITERALLY to “move” into the kingdom of heaven.

Because, only the world's biggest idiot, would “blindly believe” that they are going to simply go waltzing into the kingdom of heaven on Judgment Day, IF they NEVER literally “entered” it here on earth.

You know, the world's biggest idiots, just like these people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8t4Zs35io&t=190s

Those idiots literally have no idea what they are going to experience on Judgment Day, they sincerely believe that “heaven” is a great big orgy – and/or just a great big dose of “dopamine,” a “sense of awe,” and that all you have to do, is give the “worldly boss,” and/or your "worldly god,” a few million dollars, and you're guaranteed a “first class ticket straight into heaven,” on Judgment Day, you know, this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CPP9D5 ... 5A45BEF6DC

Judgment Day, this:

“My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For He hath regarded the low estate of His Handmaiden:
for, behold, from henceforth (all generations) shall call me blessed.
All generations.
For He that is mighty hath done to me great things;
and holy is His name.
And His mercy is on them that fear Him from generation unto generation.
He hath showed strength with His arm,
He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats,
and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He hath sent away.
He hath holpen His servant Israel,
in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spake to our fathers,
to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end.
Amen.”

Because, like I said – Everything is EXACTLY infinitely backwards, as the word “imagination,” does literally mean: “Imagination - that which is NOT accessible to the senses,” and they are all about to be “scattered,” while – simultaneously, only the world's biggest fools, will remain too proud to admit their mistakes.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 30th, 2017, 11:20 am 

I don't believe in "heaven" as some literal place. If "God" exists and wants me to "fear" him, he can go fuck himself. Rule by fear is not a legitimate way to rule anyone in my eyes. I despise authority.

If you LITERALLY SEE you LITERALLY SEE. If you LITERALLY SEE SOUNDS you LITERALLY SEE SOUNDS> The definition of SYNESTHESIA is to perceive one sense through another. To see sounds is a case of synesthesia.

If you cannot grasp that I will stop talking to you because there is literally no point talking if we are speaking different languages.

note: I have been to "heaven". You are right about one thing. It is not all happiness and daisies. It is something where "happy" becomes an insignificant emotion, where you see it as an obvious illusion. I cannot explain what that means because only going "there" and "seeing" yourself can you really understand.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 30th, 2017, 4:15 pm 

BadgerJelly » July 30th, 2017, 11:20 am wrote:I don't believe in "heaven" as some literal place. If "God" exists and wants me to "fear" him, he can go **** himself. Rule by fear is not a legitimate way to rule anyone in my eyes. I despise authority.

If you LITERALLY SEE you LITERALLY SEE. If you LITERALLY SEE SOUNDS you LITERALLY SEE SOUNDS> The definition of SYNESTHESIA is to perceive one sense through another. To see sounds is a case of synesthesia.

If you cannot grasp that I will stop talking to you because there is literally no point talking if we are speaking different languages.

note: I have been to "heaven". You are right about one thing. It is not all happiness and daisies. It is something where "happy" becomes an insignificant emotion, where you see it as an obvious illusion. I cannot explain what that means because only going "there" and "seeing" yourself can you really understand.


The "definition" of sound, is:

"sound: vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear."

The "definition" of color, is:

"color: one of the physical attributes of mass."

End of discussion.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 31st, 2017, 12:31 am 

To end a discussion you usually need to start one my friend ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 31st, 2017, 1:54 am 

User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 31st, 2017, 7:03 am 

BadgerJelly:



Let's do some math:

“Hallucinations have fascinated mankind for centuries – they occur ubiquitiously in a variety of different situations – drug induced hallucinations...(YOUR REFERENCE)”

Plus:

“At a purely chemical level, just as the injection of heroin induces dopamine, so too every experience humans find enjoyable, from savoring chocolate to embracing a lover, amounts to little more than an explosion of dopamine in the central nervous system – dopamine can be induced by a hug, a kiss, a word of praise – and, especially, through exposure to novel stimulus - Heavy (consumers) of dopamine inducing stimulus – such as through exposure to novel stimulus, are doing more damage to their brains that scientists had thought – In the study, Dr. Nora Volkow used imaging techniques to measure dopamine levels of (heavy consumers) of dopamine inducing stimulants – The addicts started out as occasional users, but over time the (dopamine) consumption hijacked their dopamine systems...” J. Madeline Nash

Plus:

“At birth a baby's brain contains about 100 million neurons – each one can produce up to 15,00 synapses, or connections to other cells – At birth a baby is flooded with sensory experiences – these experiences cause the brain to create trillions of connections, essentially 'wiring' the brain – The synapses that have been activated by virtue of repeated early experience, become permanent – the synapses that have not been used at all, or often enough, become eliminated...” Catherine Long

Plus:

“Americans devote more than 10 hours a day to screen time, and growing - The average American spends nearly half a day staring at a screen. A new Nielsen Company audience report reveals that adults in the United States devoted about 10 hours and 39 minutes each day to consuming media during the first quarter of this year...” Jacqueline Howard

Plus:

“The litany of schizophrenic symptoms reads like a guide book to the underworld. Most patients suffer from hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorders. A category that includes impaired logic, jumbled thoughts, bizarre ideas, and 'loose' associations – They may sound like beat poets out of control, employing skewed semantics, neologisms, stream-of-conscious ramblings – Joyce Kovelman and Arnold Scheibel of U.C.L.A.'s Brain Research Institute spotted a weird cellular disarray in the schizophrenic brains – The 'pyramid-shaped' cells of the hippocampus, normally arranged in an orderly manner, were grossly misaligned – A schizophrenic's neurons would start to fire in two different rhythms and rapidly become uncoupled – 'I think that in schizophrenia the brain fragments into active and inactive clusters of neurons and different parts of the brain become dissociated,' says Roy King – 'You might get and an asymmetry between the left and the right side, say' – King has a Ph. D. in math from Cornell – He went to his computer, and plugged in the variables for dopamine synthesis and released, in 1981, 'Catastrophe Theory of Dopaminergic Transmission: A Revised Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia' – The gist of the theory is that the key to schizophrenia, is chaotic fluctuations in dopamine production..” J. Hooper & D. Teresi

Plus:

“Why Picasso is the apex of art: As another of the artist's works is sold for a stratospheric sum, the world is merely catching up with his originality and genius – Picasso deserves his divine status as (our) god...” Jonathan Jones

Plus:

“Hallucination: a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.”

EQUALS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Qpz_bETjQ&t=752s
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 31st, 2017, 8:04 am 

Still waiting for you to start a discussion.

I understand it may be hard for you to grasp that no one really knows how to engage with you. The issue is you have to take some responsibility too.

Ironically you seem to be completely unable to engage on an empathic level with who you are speaking to. You are locked up and shut off. You exhibit sociopathic tendencies by showing that you simply cannot communicate on the most basic human level.

Just an observation ...

By this I mean if you cannot understand that streams of quotes, and obscure video blogs about pretty much nothing, are not what we are looking for. We are looking for a simply slow and structured conversation rather than jumping of a cliff-edge into your world of obscure references and barely discernable intense speeches and opinions about X or Y.

You also employ some peculiar jargon without any hint of an explanation as to the meaning of the terms you employ. To me at least they sounds fanciful, but mostly empty. I want to see care and structure regarding what you are talking about, step-by-step, without biblical, or any other quotes.

I don't want to know about your personal history or your education. I want to you write something I find worth my time and consideration. You clearly show passion. I am passionate too about what I am interested in and my worries and concerns about human existence and society.

I have just started to seriously study mathematics. I have been putting it off for a while. If you wish to discuss M-Theory I am sure they'd be some takers here for that. I am not capable of mathematics involved to offer much to the theory and probably won't be proficient enough to any time soon.

My interests are in "subjectivity", "language" and "society" to frame it in three simple terms. I don't know what you are talking about. My attempts to unearth some common ground seem to be complete failures. I say failures because I can only see a barrage of unstructured and ill-defined terms flooding in one direction. There is literally no discussion taking place, only some barely discernable approximations of thought spat out with passion.

The onus is on us both to open a discussion. So pick a simple topic and we can start at a sedate pace, move onto some other simple topics and then maybe take a more demanding step toward the greater picture you wish to express.

I would suggest starting with critic in other thread about what constitutes "art" and how subjectivity and objectivity relate to "art". In my mind "art" need not be "beautiful" merely emotional and/or social. I tried to start this discussion by asking what constitutes "good poetry", an area I feel more easily accessible for this format of communication (words in text!)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby BadgerJelly on July 31st, 2017, 11:05 am 

This is a poem I called The Norse Poet. Perhaps it frames what I mean in the last post better than mere common parse?

It is about "art" in general and the issue of communication. It is about necessary ambiguity and the necessary battle of overcoming, or rather reconciling, "ambiguity".


The Norse Poet

Under the ogling eye of Odin
Under the bridge a Bragi
The devil of us may sneer
Taken umbrage, while Odin just laughs.

My meaning is meansome
Fervorous and stony
No key to stone the holding
Unbridging the gaps.

Severing ties like Odin's lost eye
We troll along alonging
An island among bridges
Wisdom yet to come

All a raged
Crowned in frowns
A phalanx fore arched
Unbridging the gaps.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5307
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby MrMikeludo on July 31st, 2017, 1:39 pm 

BadgerJelly:

Ok, sure: First off, from a common-sensical approach, we know that human beings have evolved trough history, and, along with that evolution, we have developed uniquely human consciousness, of course.

Ok, so we also know, from a common-sensical approach, that there exists such a thing as “pictorial cognition,” along with an understanding of basic, common-sensical, cognitive processes, of course, and I, especially, know this fact, because I was kicked out of school in 10th grade, and went out into reality and “saw” all these things for myself, yes – saw, with my eyes, and – of course, while forming “understandings” - of REALITY, within my mind.

Ok, so because I went out into reality, I saw this: There exists, all around us, the existence of reality, evident – self evident, manifestations of the existence of reality, and which exists as an applied “function” of a basic, universally applicable, mathematical formula, which is: matter and motion (forces), things (three dimensional tangible form masses) and non-things (forces that act upon the masses), nouns (perceivable three dimensional tangible form nouns/masses) and verbs (perceivable four dimensional articulation of movement between the three dimensional tangible form masses, made manifest as a function of time), these are all absolutely “self evident facts,” of course.

Ok, so then, when we apply our formed understanding of what we can see in reality – of REALITY, we can also see that there exists a “syntax” that defines the purposeful creation of reality. And, in simple applications, such as the when we look at a crystal, and/or a diamond, and, then – as we perceive the crystal and/or diamond, we can see that the diamond is made of the same, exact, primary components as a lump of coal, but – when the primary components are “rearranged” - into a crystalline latticework, the primary components form a structure which becomes much more powerful, than when the primary components are simply “thrown together” in a haphazard manner.

And such as this:

https://www.123rf.com/photo_18316639_hi ... ttice.html

Which we can simply see with our eyes, of course.

Now, also of course, there exits a similar applied function which is not so easily seen, but which is perceivable, which is this:

https://hermetic.com/godwin/kepler-and- ... he-spheres

Ok, so now that we know that we can become aware of reality, and its applied functions, to become more “powerful,” and/or how when nature takes some primary components, and purposefully rearranges them, nature forms more “powerful structures,” we can know – because of consciousness, that when we human beings imitate our understandings of reality, we can also become capable of taking some primary components and then “rearranging” them, to become capable of becoming more powerful, and/or become capable of “forming” more powerful “structure,” and such as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(construction)

Ok, so now because I did learn everything only through my direct experiencing of reality, I know there are some other things that I did come to an understanding of. Such as the fact that I know, that when I exposed myself to a chaotic environment, such as this:

https://www.reference.com/science/effec ... 3f553df7c7

My exposure to that environment caused me to experience a “disturbance” within my mind, and central nervous system, and which caused me to move in a direction away from, it, and – too, I knew, from my exposure to reality, that that – what I just provided a link to, is the, “static,” visual representation of this:

https://reinardtvanrensburg.wordpress.c ... -pictures/

And/or chaos, and – exactly because I did experience the actual function in reality, I did also learn that that – actual pictorial sequence, does actually occur EXACTLY as it is being pictorially represented.

And/or the fact that I did experience a crash in reality, and the actual crash is always preceded by a period of “loosing control,” of my “harmonious movement” and/or harmonious existence within four dimensional reality, and – then, the “harmony” turns into “chaos,” and – THEN, the “pain” ALWAYS follows, and sometimes even death.

Ok, so too I have experienced ONLY “reality” out in reality, and/or this:

https://www.kidsdiscover.com/parentreso ... in-nature/

And/or the simple function of reality, and/or the “patterns” that define reality, and/of course, which is EXTENDING beyond this:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/72690981459203826/

Ok, so in other words, because I am alive, and I did ONLY learn EVERYTHING only through my exposure to reality, because – remember, it would be literally IMPOSSIBLE any other way, because I was kicked out of school in the 10th grade, I did learn – first hand, that when I was a young child I could ”see” ONLY the “three dimensional tangible form things” that surround us in our daily existence, and/or the “nouns” - “three dimensional masses,” that surround us in our daily existence, and then I began to realize, as I grew older – and developed my consciousness, that I could “see” BEYOND a simple three dimensional thing out in reality, and/or a single point within space/time, and then I began to realize that when I did become capable of “seeing” PAST a single “thing” within reality, and/or past a single point within simultaneously relative space/time, I was also – and simultaneously, beginning to develop my uniquely human consciousness, and/or, as you explained:

“Ironically you seem to be completely unable to engage on an empathic level with who you are speaking to. You are locked up and shut off. You exhibit sociopathic tendencies by showing that you simply cannot communicate on the most basic human level.”'


EMPATHY.

Because, this is what I did realize, that when I was young, very young, I could only “see,” basically, “two dimensionally,” and/or “one dimensionally,” and/or: “ME,” and nothing else, and/or no one else, either, and/or care for that matter – because I was just a “child.”

Ok, so this is what I realized: As a young child I could only “see” things, including other human beings, in addition, when I was kicked out of the first school I went to, I did go to a second school (but I didn't have, really, any classes – I just ran), and, when I got there I realized something, and remembering saying to myself:”Hey the 'people' at this school are all only 'like' the people in the first school, physically – and emotionally, basically, but with slight variations, but of the same basic themes,” and then I remember becoming more aware of my classmates, and fellow human beings as well, as I developed the ability to “see” literally past the single point of myself, and began to experience the “collective consciousness of mankind,” and/or experience “empathy,” of course.

Ok, so this is what I realized: When I was young I simply didn't posses the ability to understand all of simultaneously relative reality, and/or see past a single point while at any one point within space/time, and – again, which – I realized, is simply the single point of “myself,” but, I remember also being able to do things, like “see” someone get “hit in the face,” and then say, in words:”Wow – THAT must have 'hurt,” but – I realized, that when I said those words, and when I “saw” that person “get hit in the face,” when I was a young child, and then said the words:”Wow – that must have hurt,” it was kind of like I could “see” the person get hit in the face, and – then, “access my memory banks,“ and – then, “remember” myself “getting hit in the face,” and/or “crashing on my bike,” and – THEN, I could “feel the pain of being hit in the face,” and then experience:

“Ironically you seem to be completely unable to engage on an empathic level with who you are speaking to. You are locked up and shut off. You exhibit sociopathic tendencies by showing that you simply cannot communicate on the most basic human level.”'


But then, as I grew OUT of adolescence, and began to mature into an adult, I began to become aware of something changing, something becoming more “powerful,” and more powerful, as I was experiencing reality more, and more, and more, and which was this: I began to realize that, as I was experiencing that EXACT same phenomenon that I just described, where I would “see” someone “get hit in the face,” and/or someone experience “pain,” and/or someone being exposed to “chaos,” I would “see” them being exposed to that phenomenon, with my “eyes,” and – then, as I “saw” the other human being being forced to be exposed to that: chaos – discord – pain – suffering – salt – death, I would become capable of “feeling,” in real time, their: pain – etc, and, of course, also realized, that the literal definition of empathy is, simply, the neurophysiological capability to “see” past a single point in space/time, while at any one point within space/time, and which is also a neurophysiological functioning capability that can become more powerful, and more powerful, and more powerful, OR less powerful, and less powerful, and less powerful, and which – OF COURSE, explains LITERALLY everything, including THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn7zvv0PSbU&t=4s

Of course.

And this also of course:

“At Hiroshima, The common lot was random, indiscriminate and universal violence inflicting terrible pain, the physics of hydraulics and leverage and heat run riot – A junior college girl: 'Ah, that instant! I felt as though I have been struck on the back with something like a big hammer, and thrown into boiling oil – I seem to have been blown a good way to the north and I felt as though the directions were all changed around.” Richard Rhodes – The Making Of The Atomic Bomb

Which is – OF COURSE, simply the ”long term effect” of the “function,” applied above, and that which we can NOT simply see with our eyes alone, but which we can certainly “see” the effects of, and which is, remember, simply this: E=Mc2, harnessed, abstracted, and then reapplied – to form pure chaos, pain and death, and/or: salt, of course,THIS:

“For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is a good thing, but if salt has become insipid, how can you season it again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” Mark 9: 48-50

And this as well, of course:

“And He began to teach them that the Son of Man was destined to suffer grievously, to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and to be put to death, and after three days to rise again; and He said all this quite openly.” Mark 9: 48-50

Ok, so I learned all of these things first hand, of course, and then learned more about the self evident perceivable universal functions of reality, and/or, how to how, exactly, to access the universal collective consciousness of mankind: the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through our senses, and, then, how to “harness” that understanding, and/or functions, and while beginning to learn how to communicate the ultimate in THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baHrcC8B4WM

Ok, so then I did spend a LITERAL lifetime learning all of these things, directly – through direct experience, only

And then, after I decided that I was through pursuing my ambition of being in the Olympics, I decided I wanted to try to “communicate” EVERYTHING that I had spent a lifetime learning about out in reality, and while including, especially, my “understanding of empathy,” and so I did.

Ok, now to INFINITELY simplify that developed understanding of reality – of it's simultaneously relative universally applicable functions, and how I learned how to communicate that understanding as well, and while actually accessing universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the knowledge of reality that ALL of “mankind' can have in common gathered through our senses, and while also simultaneously accessing “universally applicable empathy,” and/or the literal pinnacle of uniquely human empathetic capabilities, I am going to provide this “perceivable proof,” because - remember, this:

“There are two essential yet complementary aspects of this new vision of time that are as striking in contrast as heaven and hell – Heaven is ruled by dynamical equations that are reversible and 'timeless,' their simplicity ensures stability for eternity. Hell is more akin to the real world, where chaos, fluctuations and uncertainty reign.” Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield

Ok, so because I did learn everything only through my exposure to reality, I also learned, of course, that there simply are no “images of things within our minds,” of course, and I also learned – through my exposure to reality, that the definition of “nature,” is: harmony – concord – life – etc, of course, because, remember, that is what reality is, ok?

Ok, so then I realized, that if EVERYTHING that surrounds us, is: chaos – discord – noise – pain – suffering – salt – death, and IF – as I said, I HAD actually developed my uniquely human empathetic capabilities, as I had said I had done, and we know THIS, remember:

“Proofs are not abstract. There is no such thing as proving something abstractly – One can, of course, define a class of abstract entities and call them 'proof,' but those 'proofs' can not verify mathematical statements because no one can see them...” David Deutsch

Ok, so as I said, I “said” that I developed an understanding of reality – in words, and I also said I had developed my uniquely human empathetic capabilities, and that I also understood that we are surround by “chaos” in our daily existence, and that – IF I truly had “developed my uniquely human empathetic capabilities,” as I had said I did, well then, the ABSOLUTE LAST thing that I would EVER want to do is to simply create even more “chaos” to allow my fellow human beings to be exposed to, because e- remember, as I HAVE developed my “empathetic” capabilities, that would just cause ME to experience: chaos – discord – noise – pain – suffering salt – death, and then, the ONLY “thing” that would EVER “prove,” is, what?

Well, THIS:

“Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who are like whitewashed tombs on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of corruption. In the same way you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” Matthew 23: 27-28

Or that I was a liar – and that I “understood” absolutely no “law,” actually, the universally applicable laws of nature, that is.

Ok, so let's “prove” it.

Ok, so let's look at a “liar,” such as this:

https://www.wikiart.org/en/paul-cezanne ... ow-chair-1

Ok, so when we “look” at this ”picture” what can we know immediately?

Well, we can know – as we access our uniquely human universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the “knowledge” - of the applied universally applicable simultaneously relative functions of simultaneously relative four dimensional reality, that the only “thing” that Cezanne “communicated” by “producing” that “picture,” is the exact same thing my dog, Sky, communicated, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZ2WIAX0QE

And/or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ucvf6Es3ik

And/or, ABSOLUTELY “nothing,” except, of course: “Waaaaahhhh – I WANT: someone to pay attention to me – to be famous – to 'do' absolutely nothing, and have someone hand me money for doing it, a LOT of money – as I 'CON' the world into becoming brain dead, and capable of understanding absolutely nothing for themselves,” and as a matter of fact.

Because, remember, I CAN actually access my universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and I CAN actually experience empathy as well, and I CAN “prove” it, as well.

Ok, so let's prove it – so, in so proving it, we can ask ourselves:”How can we 'fix' what Cezanne did, in that 'picture,' and – in so doing, become capable of actually accessing our universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the knowledge all of mankind can have in common gathered through our sense, and then “rearrange” the “building blocks,” in that “picture,” and – then, become capable of “proving” our uniquely human empathetic capabilities, while creating a simply “harmony' for our fellow human beings to be exposed to?

Ok, so let's begin: Ok, so, to begin with we do know this – and I DID learn this for myself through my exposure to all of simultaneously relative reality, and and which is the fact that human beings possess a three dimensional electrical potential mind, and parallel functioning central nervous system, and that human beings have a genetic predisposition for “perceiving three dimensional space” while beginning in the left, lowest – nearest, foreground, and then moving up – and out, diagonally, through the simultaneously relative depths of three dimensional space, and so – as we actually begin to do this, we can understand – immediately, that there is a problem, and being in that – as we begin our “movement,” within our minds – and through the depths of space, we can plainly see – as we do this, our “movement” will immediately begin to be “channeled” in a direction “AWAY” “from” the protagonist's eyes, and which is – of course, an ABSOLUTE contradiction to the function of “empathy,” as – OF COURSE, the “purpose” of empathy, is to allow ALL human beings to “share common harmonious experiences,” and/or to “be inside” another human being's mind/eyes, because – of course, as everyone knows, “the eyes are the windows to the soul.”

And so, we can know – as we try to “get inside the mind of the protagonist,” our movement will be redirected, because of the “heavy line” of the chair rail, and our understanding of this ”universal function:”

“All lines parallel with the viewer's line of sight recede to the horizon towards this vanishing point. This is the standard 'receding railroad tracks' phenomenon.”

And which is the fact that if you are standing in front of a rail road track and looking into the distance, the lines: of the rail road tracks, will appear to “rise up” and intersect at the horizon line: the “lines” move “up” as they “move” “away” in the far away “distance.”

Ok, so that means – as we begin to move into the space represented within the three dimensional pictorial scene, our “movement” will immediately be “redirected” by the positioning of the very heavy, and “powerful,” positioning of “chair rail,” behind Madame Cezanne, and then, instead of being led in a direction “towards” Madame Cezanne's eyes – and/or her soul, we will be led in a direction “away” from them, and in a direction towards her background

So, then – AS we become “redirected” in a direction away from Madame Cezanne's eyes, because of the heavy mass, and presence, of the chair rail, we will become immediately conflicted YET AGAIN, as we begin to “directed” in a direction towards that HUGE mass of a chair, and – again, while leading our “MINDS” in a direction AWAY from the protagonist's eyes, and in the exact wrong direction, yet again.

Then, as we actually do “move” in a direction towards that HUGE mass of a chair, because we will have been purposefully (actually unintentionally, of course) redirected in a direction towards that HUGE mass of a chair, we will be LITERALLY “stuck” at that point – BEHIND the chair, and AWAY from the protagonist's eyes, and the windows of the soul, of course.

So, then, as we TRY to “get around” that HUGE mass of a chair, and move in a direction towards the protagonist's eyes/windows to the soul, we will encounter EVEN more “contradictions.”

Because ALL of the cues - “collectively,” actually ALL literally “contradict” one another, and they simply do not add up, and they contradict what ANYONE would have seen in reality. Because, in addition, the tops of the chair rails do NOT “add up,” and that “reading” too causes ONLY “contradictions,” such as this, the tops of the chair rail moldings don't “intersect,” and, in addition, at the point where the chair rail intersects with the right hand perimeter, the top edge is higher up than where the chair rail intersects with the chair, and the opposite occurs in the left field. Which causes our mind to perceive this “composition” as if she was positioned at the point where two walls meet, at an exterior corner. Except, there's no vertical line above her head to substantiate that “read.”

And when you look at the Cezanne picture, that is exactly what the lines do in the right hand field: the lines move up at the perimeter, and which is indicating that she is sitting in front of a wall “going away.” But, in the left hand field the opposite happens: the line is higher up at the left hand perimeter, and which would indicate that that wall is “moving” in the opposite direction: or that Madame Cezanne is sitting at the exterior corner where 2 walls intersect, such as here:

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-to- ... ons-180769

And for added understanding, you can see this picture where 2 walls meet at an interior corner:

http://www.aaronshomeinspections.com/si ... ction.html

And where the lines go “up” towards the center of the picture: where 2walls meet at an interior corner.

Except, there is no “vertical line” in the Cezanne picture, behind Madame Cezanne's head, as there is in those pictures, so that is an additional contradiction.

But, more importantly, the mere fact that he would put that chair rail there at all is an indication that Cezanne did not even begin to understand the concept of

Because, the primary purpose of composition is to “purposefully direct” all the “movement” towards, and around, the “human” protagonist, which is Madame Cezanne, and too it is supposed to be towards the protagonist's face. And when Cezanne put that chair rail where he did, it created the exact opposite effect, it directs all the movement “away” from Madame Cezanne's face. And worse than that, Cezanne painted that huge chair that Madamme Cezanne is sitting on. And when he painted all that mass of the chair rails, it leads our “minds:” NOT our “eyes,” in a direction towards the back of that huge chair. Then, because he has the chair pivoted in the wrong direction: because our minds have a natural inclination to perceive 3-D space beginning in the lower left foreground: and move up and out into the distance, as our minds do begin to “move,” they get redirected towards the back of that huge chair, because of latching onto the chair rails, and – then, after we get to the back of the chair, we have to try to redirect our minds: come back out into the foreground field, and then try to get back up to Madame Cezanne's face. But, because of the huge mass of the chair, the struggle starts all over again

So, if someone did understand the concepts of composition, what would they do? The polar opposite:

Pivot the protagonist in the opposite direction: with shoulders going away towards the left. Eliminate that huge mass of that chair. Take away the chair molding, and replace that chair molding with some compositional elements in the distance: maybe a road or a river. Then, purposefully use those elements to “direct” the mind towards the protagonist's eyes: in the far away distance. Then, use those same compositional elements to bring the mind back down through the midground, and into the foreground again. And then allow that whole process, of purposefully “directing” the viewer's mind from foreground, to midground, and then background, and through the protagonist's eyes, all over again - to "purposefully orchestrate an elementary Eternal Harmony," for all of MANKIND to access - "COLLECTIVELY."

Which would look like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa

So, “that” is “proof" that someone, anyone – such as myself, is capable of experiencing “empathy,” and/or capable of proving that they are capable of accessing universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through our senses, and – then, abstracting that understanding, and – then, reapplying that understanding as well, to become capable of literally effecting the collective consciousness of mankind, at an “elementary” level, of course.

Oh, and by the way, here is the “acoustic version” of that, as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOCclpD-_lw&t=9s
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Scientific proof of God's existence.

Postby Braininvat on August 1st, 2017, 9:11 pm 

Sorry, threads can be locked at moderator discretion. When postings meander so far from the stated topic, and attempts to fix that problem fail, then it's time to end it. Also, I think it's been made clear that extremely long essays should be linked, with just a brief and coherent abstract of the essay showing in the post.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6580
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Previous

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests