No one is "talking shits" about Zippo personally, they are just mentioning the fact he uses the same maps.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: HHC
You know about it only because you have been taught that it is so. You go by convention rather than direct experience.
Quote from: HHCHmm.. that isn't a real natural law is it? That's an event happening at a set location in time and space. Kinda like Hagar the Viking hitting Charles the Frank on the head with a battleaxe. I'm fairly sure both would agree at the time that it was a 100% fact that it happened (unless both of them were psychotic, or liars), but when Hagar goes back to his camp the next day and tells the story, would everyone believe him? What evidence would Hagar have to back up his claims? What evidence do we have now that Hagar even existed 1200 years ago?
Quote from: HHCA natural law on the other hand could be recreated through experiment. Suppose Komo and HHC were robots instead (and thus live forever), everytime Komo walked to HHC he would have to hit him in order for the natural law to have any validity. Yet.. what if one day Komo walked up to me and instead slipped over a banana on the way there. The robot would fall, HHC would not get hit and the natural law would not be 100% correct anymore. This is something that can happen to any natural law. If a certain object defies the law of gravity tomorrow then we've got a bit of a problem and the law of gravity would not be 100% applicable anymore.
Furthermore, the experiment may have been done on a false basis. Outside of the experiment there may not be electricity for the robots to move, thus the robots would only behave this way in the labratory and not in reality. Or.. what if the robots only moved because they were instructioned by the doctor's mind to do so? In quantum physics this is a real problem because the observer seems to have a direct influence on the behaviour of the matter he's experimenting with:
Quote from: HHCI dunno, it just seems that calling people's opinion stupid is not a sign of high respect. But nm, let's stick to the topic.
Quote from: HHC on October 03, 2010, 06:21 AMQuote from: Komo on October 02, 2010, 08:34 PM
Who says I found an answer, my point was I don't believe in any it, my point from the start was all I believe in is my 5 senses, and things 100% proven, at least to my senses.
And those senses cannot be deceived?
And what is 100% proven? Nothing is.
There are lots of things in the universe as of yet unexplained or the subject of mere speculation. They are not 100% facts (nor ever will be) and they are not perceivable with any of the senses. That doesn't mean that they don't exist though. I mean, what goes on in a black hole? That's something we will never know. Should we just stop the investigation there and say that black holes don't exist as they aren't perceivable with the eye?
You can bash religious people (or big bang followers) all you like but when you're too lazy to even speculate what may beyond our horizons and dismiss any such theories as bogus from the start there really isn't much point in discussing the big questions of life..
Quote from: Ramone on October 03, 2010, 05:46 AM
As I said, people used to believe that the Earth was a flat plate, but then Human intelligence proved that it's a round ball and they knew. No need for beliefs. At that time Catholic Church "main Bible servants" have ordered to kill/burn those godless blasphemers that dare to claim that. Looks like "God" forgot to mention in that code that Earth is ball-shaped when he was talking about creations of things.. And btw, I've seen many books with "codes".. Allegorical stories are grateful for 100 different interpretations that U can call "codes", but that do not prove that they were written with a help of a "higher force" or "God"...
Quote from: HHC on October 02, 2010, 08:04 PMQuote from: Komo on October 02, 2010, 08:00 PM
I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory either.
Hmm... I find it hard to belief you found an answer to the creator of the creator-paradox without the support of a timeless entity. A cyclical time-notion perhaps?
Quote from: HHC on October 02, 2010, 07:59 PMQuote from: Komo on October 02, 2010, 03:54 PM
Theres no paradox, what you are saying just can't exist, how can "God" create us, but nothing creates him? This just doesn't make sense and you know it, deep down you KNOW this just can't be true.
The Big Bang-theory suffers from the same issue though.. you can't have an 'explosion' without matter to ignite, as well as something/someone to ignite it.
There is no time before the big bang. Yet there has had to be something to trigger the explosion. And thus, that 'something' must have existed outside time, as a timeless being.
A timeless God really isn't such an absurd notion if you stop to take the linear timescale for granted (which is what I said before.. most people denounce God based on an outdated 18th century Newtonian worldview).
Quote from: Almog on October 02, 2010, 07:54 PM
komo, dinosaurs are mention in the bilble