A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A supreme intelligence that designed the Universe and created laws is by definition supernatural. If it is a natural part of the Universe it couldn't be its designer or created its laws, nor could it be supreme.

Absolutely not true. The manifestation of a world in which we are delivered from evil is enough proof that there is a plan, otherwise this world would be chaotic. But I am not here to argue with those people who think otherwise. This is not a test. You are entitled to your opinion, so why the argument? I am not here to argue about this. It is what it is, and what you take from it is also what it is, so there's no point in trying to be the winner.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not true. The manifestation of a world in which we are delivered from evil is enough proof that there is a plan, otherwise this world would be chaotic. But I am not here to argue with those people who think otherwise. This is not a test. You are entitled to your opinion, so why the argument? I am not here to argue about this. It is what it is, and what you take from it is also what it is, so there's no point in trying to be the winner.

But we are not delivered from Evil. That there is Evil in the world, by your own definition, would indicate thet there is no plan. Can you honestly look at the world today and say that it is not chaotic?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a test.

This IS A TEST and you and your fathers book have failed.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But we are not delivered from Evil. That there is Evil in the world, by your own definition, would indicate thet there is no plan. Can you honestly look at the world today and say that it is not chaotic?

That could be the plan. This is not peacegirl's biggest hurdle. Her insistence that there is no free-will makes her self imposed mission to save the world a rather pointless quest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But we are not delivered from Evil. That there is Evil in the world, by your own definition, would indicate thet there is no plan. Can you honestly look at the world today and say that it is not chaotic?

No, we're not delivered yet, but as Lessans stated, we had to go through the necessary stages of evil to reach the outposts of this coming Golden Age.

p. 61 We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun
that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the
solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony was
this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not true. The manifestation of a world in which we are delivered from evil is enough proof that there is a plan, otherwise this world would be chaotic.

But this manifestation has not happened and the world is somewhat orderly chaos.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I am not here to argue with those people who think otherwise. This is not a test. You are entitled to your opinion, so why the argument? I am not here to argue about this. It is what it is, and what you take from it is also what it is, so there's no point in trying to be the winner.

You repeatedly lied about what you think God is. You have been deceptive. That's the reason for an argument.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble Images falsify this claim

All that is required to create an image using a camera is light and photosensitive material or a photoreceptive digital sensor

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not an explanation, that's just a statement of conditions you deem necessary. You have no explanation for how photons come to be located on the surface of camera film if there are no photons located on the surface of camera film because they are located someplace else.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can the object become a mirror image?

If light is at the film it has to get there. If the mirror image is made of light that is at the film, then you still have to explain how the light got there. It must be a physical mechanism.

Like if I ask you how you came to be located on the chair...you wouldn't say you became a mirror image there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not true. The manifestation of a world in which we are delivered from evil is enough proof that there is a plan, otherwise this world would be chaotic.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But this manifestation has not happened and the world is somewhat orderly chaos.

That is true. If there was no orderly chaos, we could never make progress toward a more peaceful and just world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I am not here to argue with those people who think otherwise. This is not a test. You are entitled to your opinion, so why the argument? I am not here to argue about this. It is what it is, and what you take from it is also what it is, so there's no point in trying to be the winner.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You repeatedly lied about what you think God is. You have been deceptive. That's the reason for an argument.

There you go throwing that word around again. I have never lied or intentionally deceived anyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble Images falsify this claim

That is what's being debated so you can't use this as a confirmation.

If the object did not have to be in view, and all that was required was light for an image to show up on film, that would be a different story

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All that is required to create an image using a camera is light and photosensitive material or a photoreceptive digital sensor

No, that's not all that is required to get an image. Yes, you will get light on a sensor but you will not get an image of an object if the object (the material substance) is not in view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your mistake was changing your analysis. Originally it didn't violate the laws of physics and now it does

But it also meets the requirements of real time photography (i.e., the object being in the field of view and the object's brightness)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean?

Exactly what it says.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such thing as real time photography. There is no way to make the physics work for it.

You are not right. If efferent vision is correct (which I believe it is), we would get a real time photo at the exact moment we are seeing a real time object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At least with efferent vision you can fall back on "not knowing all of how the brain works".

But efferent vision works the same way with cameras because of the fact that a mirror image would show up on the retina or film instantly, regardless of what the brain is doing. I explained this already. The only difference is that we see objects in real time, whereas cameras produce the same image in a photograph.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unfortunately for you, we know exactly how cameras work, and they require light to be in contact with the film or sensor. That means light has to be in the same location as the film or sensor.

But light is there at the film instantly if the object is in view because the mirror image works in exactly the same way it works with the eyes [if efferent vision is true; I"m saying "if" so as not to appear unreasonable).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you can't explain how it comes to be located there, you are absolutely wrong.

I have explained it. The object must be within the lenses' field of view and it has to be bright enough for an image to show up on film. There is no need to attribute this to magic or teleportation as the only explanation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not an explanation, that's just a statement of conditions you deem necessary. You have no explanation for how photons come to be located on the surface of camera film if there are no photons located on the surface of camera film because they are located someplace else.

I have given you the requirements which would allow a mirror image to show up without those photons having to first travel to Earth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can the object become a mirror image?

From light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light is at the film it has to get there. If the mirror image is made of light that is at the film, then you still have to explain how the light got there. It must be a physical mechanism.

The problem is that you are separating the light from the object, as if the light is bringing through space and time the image, which is false. The light is only reflecting the object, and the light is at the film because of the requirements that allow this phenomenon to occur.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Like if I ask you how you came to be located on the chair...you wouldn't say you became a mirror image there.

No, because these are to different phenomena. You are comparing apples to oranges, and that never works.

[LadyShea]

Sure you did lie, every time you insisted you meant God metaphorically when you knew that wasn't true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what's being debated so you can't use this as a confirmation.

There is no debate. The Hubble Images exist and can be reviewed and analyzed by anyone, even you.

A photographic image? Yes, that is all that is required.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, you will get light on a sensor but you will not get an image of an object if the object (the material substance) is not in view.

The object's reflected or emitted light must strike the film or sensor, as has been demonstrated over and over for the last 100+ years of photography and digital imaging

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But efferent vision works the same way with cameras because of the fact that a mirror image would show up on the retina or film instantly, regardless of what the brain is doing. I explained this already. The only difference is that we see objects in real time, whereas cameras produce the same image in a photograph.

You still haven't explained how the photons that are interacting with the film or sensor came to be located on the film or sensor of the camera, where they came from, where they were the moment before, or how they got there instantly.

Without a physically possible mechanism you are talking about magic and wishes.

You appear unreasonable because you are talking about magic...physical impossibilites.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you the requirements which would allow a mirror image to show up without those photons having to first travel to Earth.

Conditions you deem necessary is not an explanation nor does it demonstrate you understand the laws of physics under discussion at all. This is as simple as it gets. Something is someplace, how did it get there?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light is at the film it has to get there. If the mirror image is made of light that is at the film, then you still have to explain how the light got there. It must be a physical mechanism.

The problem is that you are separating the light from the object, as if the light is bringing through space and time the image, which is false.

The light is separate from the object, because light is a thing with properties. You know this, you've said.

And back to light "bringing" stuff, huh? You just reset back to stupid.

The light is only reflecting the object, and the light is at the film because of the requirements that allow this phenomenon to occur.

What allows it to occur? It must be a physical mechanism

It's not a different phenomena at all. There are physical laws and mechanisms involved in location, and coming to be at locations, and they apply to both.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no debate. The Hubble Images exist and can be reviewed and analyzed by anyone, even you.

A photographic image? Yes, that is all that is required.

The object's reflected or emitted light must strike the film or sensor, as has been demonstrated over and over for the last 100+ years of photography and digital imaging

You still haven't explained how the photons that are interacting with the film or sensor came to be located on the film or sensor of the camera, where they came from, where they were the moment before, or how they got there instantly.

Without a physically possible mechanism you are talking about magic and wishes.

You appear unreasonable because you are talking about magic...physical impossibilites.

Conditions you deem necessary is not an explanation nor does it demonstrate you understand the laws of physics under discussion at all. This is as simple as it gets. Something is someplace, how did it get there?

The light is separate from the object, because light is a thing with properties. You know this, you've said.

And back to light "bringing" stuff, huh? You just reset back to stupid.

What allows it to occur? It must be a physical mechanism

It's not a different phenomena at all. There are physical laws and mechanisms involved in location, and coming to be at locations, and they apply to both.

I do not know what's going on, but I have made two attempts to answer you and both have been suddenly cut off. I don't want to have to repeat the same thing again. All I can say is that you are comparing apples to oranges in the sense that the mechanism that allows us to see an object in real time is not the same mechanism that makes a chair to be located next to my butt. Sorry for being so crude, but I have just had two posts deleted and I'm pissed.

[LadyShea]

All I can say is that you are comparing apples to oranges in the sense that the mechanism that allows us to see an object in real time is not the same mechanism that makes a chair to be located next to my butt

No, I am not. You are being willfully obtuse by refusing to see that physical laws apply to light coming to be at a physical location (the film or sensor) just as they apply to your ass coming to be physically located in a chair.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure you did lie, every time you insisted you meant God metaphorically when you knew that wasn't true.

Maybe my definition is not the same as yours. If the laws of our nature eventually deliver us from evil (hurt), it seems to me that this world did not get here by accident. If this is true, then this world is here by design. Who or what created these laws? This is what I call a Supreme Intelligence. I know this implies that there is a designer who created the design, which implies intention and purpose. That leaves me with a sense of awe and wonder. I don't think we are meant to understand the workings of this world entirely. All I can say is that I do not think of this Supreme Intelligence as a Being, so I was not lying or purposely being deceptive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I am not. You are being willfully obtuse by refusing to see that physical laws apply to light coming to be at a physical location (the film or sensor) just as they apply to your ass coming to be physically located in a chair.

I am not being willfully anything LadyShea. My coming to a chair and sitting has nothing to do with the physical laws of light, so I have no idea where this example is relevant.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe my definition is not the same as yours. If the laws of our nature eventually deliver us from evil (hurt), it seems to me that this world did not get here by accident. If this is true, then this world is here by design. Who or what created these laws? This is what I call a Supreme Intelligence. I know this implies that there is a designer who created the design, which implies intention and purpose. That leaves me with a sense of awe and wonder. I don't think we are meant to understand the workings of this world entirely. All I can say is that I do not think of this Supreme Intelligence as a Being, so I was not lying or purposely being deceptive.

That is still a literal rather than a metaphorical use of the term 'God'. If the above is what you believe, then you have been lying to us every time you say you are using the word 'God' only as a metaphor for the impersonal laws of nature.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But efferent vision works the same way with cameras because of the fact that a mirror image would show up on the retina or film instantly, regardless of what the brain is doing. I explained this already. The only difference is that we see objects in real time, whereas cameras produce the same image in a photograph.

For the millionth time: Saying that something works the same as something else that you can't explain is NOT an explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you the requirements which would allow a mirror image to show up without those photons having to first travel to Earth.

A list of requirements is NOT an explanation. You still need to actually EXPLAIN how the satisfaction of these requirements gets light to the film without it coming into existence there, teleporting there, or traveling there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that you are separating the light from the object, as if the light is bringing through space and time the image, which is false.

Light IS separate from the object, but we are NOT saying it brings anything but itself through space and time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is only reflecting the object...

Objects reflect light. Light does NOT reflect objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and the light is at the film because of the requirements that allow this phenomenon to occur.

The satisfaction of your requirements does NOT explain how the light gets there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because these are to different phenomena. You are comparing apples to oranges, and that never works.

An ass in a chair IS the same as light on a film insofar as in both cases it cannot be in that location without somehow getting there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is still a literal rather than a metaphorical use of the term 'God'. If the above is what you believe, then you have been lying to us every time you say you are using the word 'God' only as a metaphor for the impersonal laws of nature.

I am not attributing the word God to a Being of any kind. That's what I thought was the literal use of the term God.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For the millionth time: Saying that something works the same as something else that you can't explain is NOT an explanation.

I was asked to explain how a camera and the eye can be the same when a camera doesn't have a brain. That cameras develop photographs of real time images, and the eyes see those images (or objects) in real time, does not change the mechanism that allows this to occur. This was a reasonable explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you the requirements which would allow a mirror image to show up without those photons having to first travel to Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

A list of requirements is NOT an explanation. You still need to actually EXPLAIN how the satisfaction of these requirements gets light to the film without it coming into existence there, teleporting there, or traveling there.

Having to get there is not necessary if it's a mirror image. The only way a mirror image can show up is if the requirement that the object is within the field of view, is met.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that you are separating the light from the object, as if the light is bringing through space and time the image, which is false.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light IS separate from the object, but we are NOT saying it brings anything but itself through space and time.

But not the full light spectrum, therefore it is believed that the pattern of light will produce an image of the object that it bounced off of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is only reflecting the object...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Objects reflect light. Light does NOT reflect objects.

That's a matter of opinion. If the eyes are efferent light reveals (or reflects) the world, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and the light is at the film because of the requirements that allow this phenomenon to occur.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The satisfaction of your requirements does NOT explain how the light gets there.

The light does not have to get anywhere if the eyes are efferent, that's just the point. The light reveals the object which means it has to be a mirror image which does not require travel time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because these are to different phenomena. You are comparing apples to oranges, and that never works.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

An ass in a chair IS the same as light on a film insofar as in both cases it cannot be in that location without somehow getting there.

You haven't understood a thing I've tried to explain, which is why there can be no resolution in either of these debates.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was asked to explain how a camera and the eye can be the same when a camera doesn't have a brain. That cameras develop photographs of real time images, and the eyes see those images (or objects) in real time, does not change the mechanism that allows this to occur. This was a reasonable explanation.

No, appealing to a comparison with something else that you can't explain is NOT a reasonable explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having to get there is not necessary if it's a mirror image. The only way a mirror image can show up is if the requirement that the object is within the field of view, is met.

Satisfying your requirements DOES NOT explain how the light gets to be there at the film. Anything that is somewhere has to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not the full light spectrum, therefore it is believed that the pattern of light will produce an image of the object that it bounced off of.

Of course not the full spectrum. So long as objects have absorptive properties, it will not be the full spectrum that bounces off objects. But the light is still distinct from the object and travels without bringing anything but itself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a matter of opinion. If the eyes are efferent light reveals (or reflects) the world, not the other way around.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a simple matter of understanding what the word 'reflect' means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light does not have to get anywhere if the eyes are efferent, that's just the point. The light reveals the object which means it has to be a mirror image which does not require travel time.

Photons that get from the object to the distant camera to form a mirror image there with zero travel time are TELEPORTING photons. Getting from one physical location to another physical location without traveling through the intervening distance and without taking any time to get there is teleportation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't understood a thing I've tried to explain, which is why there can be no resolution in either of these debates.

You haven't tried to EXPLAIN anything. You don't even seem to understand what an explanation actually is.

[koan]

If peacegirl had actually examined the history of evil, the sociological and anthropological studies of evil and had an ounce of perception she would have noticed that all human evil is performed in a personal heroic quest that primarily tries to rid the world of evil and secondarily tries to gain heroic glory for the person that instigates it. Even psychopaths like Charles Manson believe they are ridding the world of evil in some way.

If you want to actually bring peace to the world, for God's sake, stop trying to rid the world of evil.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe my definition is not the same as yours. If the laws of our nature eventually deliver us from evil (hurt), it seems to me that this world did not get here by accident. If this is true, then this world is here by design. Who or what created these laws? This is what I call a Supreme Intelligence. I know this implies that there is a designer who created the design, which implies intention and purpose. That leaves me with a sense of awe and wonder. I don't think we are meant to understand the workings of this world entirely. All I can say is that I do not think of this Supreme Intelligence as a Being, so I was not lying or purposely being deceptive.

It is fitting that it should leave you with a sense of wonder, as it contradicts all the other ideas you espouse. Awe I am not so sure of.

You even say "Who or what created these laws" ... nothing natural could have done so, that is for sure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

If peacegirl had actually examined the history of evil, the sociological and anthropological studies of evil and had an ounce of perception she would have noticed that all human evil is performed in a personal heroic quest that primarily tries to rid the world of evil and secondarily tries to gain heroic glory for the person that instigates it. Even psychopaths like Charles Manson believe they are ridding the world of evil in some way.

If you want to actually bring peace to the world, for God's sake, stop trying to rid the world of evil.

If you understood the first thing about what you read, you would know that this is a serious work. I have been given knowledge that can change the world for the better, and all you can say is that I am no different than a psychpath who is on a personal heroic quest whose secondary goal is to gain heroic glory? The only thing I can think of that would prompt you to say this is jealousy.