Afterlife?

Wow! Don't you guys have jobs? Do they pay you for this E36 M3?

It appears the only thing proven here is that nothing can be proven. Kinda figured it would end where it began.

I do fail to see how this helps address the OP's question. Beyond the need to compare pecker sizes, does anyone actually care to help?

Started off well. Sorry Javelin.

SVreX wrote: Wow! Don't you guys have jobs? Do they pay you for this E36 M3? It appears the only thing proven here is that nothing can be proven. Kinda figured it would end where it began. I do fail to see how this helps address the OP's question. Beyond the need to compare pecker sizes, does anyone actually care to help? Started off well. Sorry Javelin.

A quick glance back thru these many pages of tangential conversation shows some guy named SVreX jumping in on the early derailment. I couldn't help notice the similarity in the name... surely I am mistaken though because you seem to be way above that sort of thing in your last, condescending post deriding such behavior.

Yeah, I'm about to wrap it up as well. I usually don't post this much or get too involved. I don't want to be an UltraDork anytime soon. I leave with this...You will never know how much you believe something until it is a matter of life and death. Just make sure your ready. I love you guys, really I do. To the OP, I wish you the best with the youngin'.

Curmudgeon wrote: Math is certainly a concept and its tenets are provable. We assign symbols to describe how many of something there are, when an equation is constructed from those symbols its answer is either right or it's wrong and that can be proven. If math's basic tenets could not be proven or were fluid, then there would be no way to descibe, say, the strength of concrete or predict when a material will fail. Yet that is certainly possible to do mathematically.

A longer reply will follow unless I find something better to do tonight, but your idea that the tenets of math are proven as you descibe above is incorrect. There is more than one way to axiomize mathematics; if you define the veracity of mathematics as simply as you just did, you doom the concept.

If there really aren't any inconsistencies in math, you can't even mathematically prove math is consistent - thank Gödel for that.

I can't say I have all my faith figured out yet, but I do know that I can't possibly answer any of the first questions posited.

I think trying to prove the existence of God through miracles, unexplainable phenomena, and logic, is to me a fruitless task. I don't believe we can prove the existence of a God any more than I can deduce how and why I was born and untold others were not. It's simply apples and oranges. Everything we understand, and even our ability to perceive it, is incompatible with the discussion we are having here. Human existence is what we can know - everything else is beyond.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

SVreX wrote: Wow! Don't you guys have jobs? Do they pay you for this E36 M3? It appears the only thing proven here is that nothing can be proven. Kinda figured it would end where it began. I do fail to see how this helps address the OP's question. Beyond the need to compare pecker sizes, does anyone actually care to help? Started off well. Sorry Javelin.

A quick glance back thru these many pages of tangential conversation shows some guy named SVreX jumping in on the early derailment. I couldn't help notice the similarity in the name... surely I am mistaken though because you seem to be way above that sort of thing in your last, condescending post deriding such behavior.

That would be the same guy who has apologized twice, right?

If you apologize, then do it again, were you really sorry?

...the turtle moves

MG Bryan wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?

Yes. That is how we "Account".

There is no such way to account for math or logic. Your position is unsustainable; presuppositions which science cannot prove are necessary for science to prove anything else.

It is highly possible to devise meaningful experiments that can derive entirely from logic, with out observed phenomena. It's also good when this is backed up by observational data, but not strictly required in some cases.

Duke wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?

Yes. That is how we "Account".

There is no such way to account for math or logic. Your position is unsustainable; presuppositions which science cannot prove are necessary for science to prove anything else.

It is **highly** possible to devise meaningful experiments that can derive entirely from logic, with out observed phenomena. It's also good when this is backed up by observational data, but not strictly required in some cases.

Yep, I never said anything to contradict that. I said you can't devise and experiment to test logic. The experiment would have to presuppose logic...

When it is time for me to know, I will know. I think.

z31maniac wrote: If you apologize, then do it again, were you really sorry?

hahaha

MG Bryan wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Math is certainly a concept and its tenets are provable. We assign symbols to describe how many of something there are, when an equation is constructed from those symbols its answer is either right or it's wrong and that can be proven. If math's basic tenets could not be proven or were fluid, then there would be no way to descibe, say, the strength of concrete or predict when a material will fail. Yet that is certainly possible to do mathematically.

A longer reply will follow unless I find something better to do tonight, but your idea that the tenets of math are proven as you descibe above is incorrect. There is more than one way to axiomize mathematics; if you define the veracity of mathematics as simply as you just did, you doom the concept. If there really aren't any inconsistencies in math, you can't even mathematically prove math is consistent - thank Gödel for that.

Godel was a bright guy who theorized his ass off (he stumped Einstein to some extent and laid the foundation for the modern theory of what we call the space-time continuum) but his theorems assume that those of others are true. If they are not then his are wrong since they would have been built on the wrong foundation.

It is very possible he might have made a mistake or two, but that's for others to prove, not me.

I am completely okay with being another step in nutrient cycling. I'm going to make some microbes very happy someday. This is how I come to terms with the fact that some day, I will die.

In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.
And when we're gone from here,
our friends will be drinking all the beer.

1. Guilt for wrongdoing is a good thing. It's a healthy response of a good conscience. 2. Fear of hell when one has mortally sinned is a good thing. When you do gravely sin, you reject God, and without Him you have every reason to fear hell. Fear of legitimate danger in general is a healthy response. However 1. Guilt for not doing something wrong is an issue. 2. Fear of God as if he'll punish you for something not wrong is an issue. Furthermore Feelings are not the point. Oftentimes feelings are false and deceptive. You need something more than feelings to base your faith upon. Have you ever "felt good" about something and been let down? Have you ever been sure that something was a failure and been surprised when it was not?

I couldn't more politely disagree .

Your feelings are your gift from the universe (god, higher power, whatever) to guide you. In my belief set (not necessarily anyone else's) those feelings ARE your guide. Not following them is the sin. Randomly following a set of rules edited by Constantine for the good of his wealth and control and assuming they are God's words is the deception IMO.

Once we (as humans) realize that all souls are one and that hurting others hurts ourselves, there will be no need for the belief in sin, hell, and satan.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Jesus on a fish stick

Are you sure that isn't Mrs Paul?

Its Gary Busey's mugshot.

Fletch1 wrote: Yeah, I'm about to wrap it up as well. I usually don't post this much or get too involved. I don't want to be an UltraDork anytime soon. I leave with this...You will never know how much you believe something until it is a matter of life and death. Just make sure your ready. I love you guys, really I do. To the OP, I wish you the best with the youngin'.

In all seriousness, I love you too. You have strong convictions and aren't afraid to voice them. I respect that.

I missed a couple days and tried to read all of the last 5 pages I missed but I just don't have the energy or beer at 1am to continue :)

Good chat lads and ladies. See you in the afterli.... oh wait. Well, I'll be there if you want to meet me :) I'll be the dashingly handsome guy with the white-dude fro.

....somebody is about to get hit in the face by a turtle. THEN you guys will believe!

curtis73 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Jesus on a fish stick

Are you sure that isn't Mrs Paul?

Its Gary Busey's mugshot.

I'll be damned...

^Not Gary Busey.

z31maniac wrote: ^Not Gary Busey.

The shirt is proof that there is no god.

In reply to z31maniac:

There is no mugshot of him. He's harmless. The interwebs told me so.

N Sperlo wrote:

curtis73 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: Jesus on a fish stick

Are you sure that isn't Mrs Paul?

Its Gary Busey's mugshot.

I'll be damned...

Yes there's a real strong resemblance and it's actually Nick Nolte's mug shot.

That is one horrible shirt.