Creationist party over: GIGANTORAPTOR discovered

[Ravens8]

DONT KNOCK MY GOAT. I'm sure he's pulled many fine chariots in his time.

and mentioning golden fleece in front of a goat is like whispering "mince sauce" in the ear of a sheep

[ReFur]

Ravens8 I love your goat Avatar!

[White Fox]

I am at a goat farm every now and then. Indeed Goats are one of the few animals that are still cute when they grow up! Playful as ever and darned cute. And the young of course are absolutely like human babies in the way that they act, etc. They are indeed generally a playful animal as well. Most every animal is cute when a baby and - should I say it - a little bit ugly when they grow up. However, they can get rather rough too when cornered!

 

Sorry. Back on topic. Couldn't resist that. Ravens - Great to see you here.

 

W

[Guest]

Unified Field Theory and the Afterlife

 

Well I am sure I read somewhere that Einstein was eager to prove Unified Field Theory as it essentially would prove the existence and purpose of creation and afterlife.

 

 

Essentially, IF science proves it, then it proves the existence of the afterlife. And it is the circle of life model. But, if we see religions as metaphor, then it does not dispute any of them either.

 

A shrewd punter has placed a bet to win a Million pounds with bookmakers if he can prove the afterlife. If Unified Field Theory is proved, then that does it. It may not be precisely what religions have in mind....with lessons and redemption and reincarnation and heaven and hell. BUT then much of this is how the Bible etc have been interpreted. Heaven and hell as such are medieval notions nothing to do with christianity and more in line with classical Roman intepretations of Hades.

 

So if in a physical way a dead animal becomes part of something else, and its residual "spirit energy" can be shown to still exist (so far it can be tracked as leaving the body as electric charge and dispersing but they don't know what happens then) then this proves IF all energy is connected in a single field that there is indeed in afterlife. Whether then it becomes part of somthing "conscious" is another matter. Yes, a computer programme is running but not conscious. BUT if we think of physical matter as merely a vehicle for energy, then there is some reason for the matter to exist in a single "plan"; indeed, spreading throughout infinitely possible universes.

 

Science it appears , is well on the way to proving "God", not as a grey bearded deity....but as energy that flows through all things in a single field and therefore creator.

 

Some others on this matter:

http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/symtalk.html

 

and Steven Hawking saying the same in less metaphysical and more scientific terms:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-84246681.html

 

What is nice there is the notion that God if he exists in not "director" but rather referee. Looks like the Christian notion of free (and its infinite consquences) will may have a very real scientific base.

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

Thank you for the wealth of references you have provided here and I'm sure many others are trying to wade their way through them as I am. They do take some reading mind - advanced theoretical physics is out of reach for most people outside of PhDs in that field - so perhaps you have much more time on your hands to fully understand them. I still think that you are making some rather strange assumptions while doing so, such as the dualist notion of a distinction between mind and matter rather than the concept of mind being a manifestion of matter.

 

The Wiki reference you provided to the Unified Field Theory includes a clear statement at the top that the article "does not cite any references or sources". A further paragraph titled "Non-Mainstream Theories" states the following:

Albert Einstein famously spent the last two decades of his life searching for a Unified Field Theory. This has led to a great deal of fascination with the subject and has drawn some people from outside the portion of the physics community that typically addresses these issues to work on a Unified Field Theory. Most of this work typically appears in non-peer reviewed sources, such as self-published books or personal websites. The work that appears outside of the standard scientific channels often are pseudo-science that do not live up to the rigors necessary to be considered a real scientific theory. Much of this work goes under the name non-mainstream theories. An example of such a theory is Heim theory.

So, a number of the theories proposed may not be scientific ones, purely philosophical.

 

What is important is this: Unified field theory established or no, there IS almost certainly "a unified theory of everything" operating in practice. Some people have called this God.

Energy cannot be destroyed; only changed into other energy. If something unifies all this energy in one field, is that not the Creator?

The Unified Field Theory might show us the rules of the universe - "how" it works - but won't necessarily show us how it started, or indeed whether these "rules" have changed over time or were in operation at the Big Bang singularity or the tiniest fraction of a second afterwards.

 

Going back to creationism and your quote above:

Hell just think of how many religions talk of the Spirit and the Great Spirit and the Holy Spirit. Isn't that what they mean? Energy?

I don't think most religions and certainly most Creationists would agree that they mean Energy; the mainstream monotheist religions are quite clear what they think of as the Creator or the Divine. But of course there are belief systems who do follow such an idea: Animism (as you state), Druidism (is that is a distinct branch of Animism?), Jedism (now officially recognised thanks to our last Census).

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

May the force be with you Young Mockle.

 

What Einstein basically theorised.....and its why he befriended Marilyn Monroe because she could understand easily and simply the notion of what he was saying without fully comprehending the physics (and note Hawking has posters of her too)....is that if there is a unified field...if all energy is connected...then it is a "God". If of course gravity light magnetism etc all operate individually, there is no unified field and therefore no "great purpose". No God.

 

Now if you acknowledge what Einstein and Hawking are saying in trying to prove Unified Field Theory, they are saying it is the meaning of life, proof that nothing dies, the raison d'etre of the universe, etc. Now what scientists are doing in taking quantum physics as an intellectual game in its own right rather than using it to prove the possible existence of proving Unified field. Yes the Animists (Though Druids are about as animists as the Incas were...its a corruption) of primitive socieies were right all along if Hawking and Einstein are right. And there is indeed a spirit world. It exists along side us inside us everywhere; between particles. Shamen believ they can enter it, and that things can maifest themselves to guide us. Who knows...but its there...that is for sure; scientifically.

Trying to understand it is like an amoeba to imagine what it is like to be living anywhere else other than the surface tension film of a pond. When his space is suddenly disrupted by tennis ball disrupting his 2 D world by landing in the pond he would be unable to comprehend it; indeed more thn likely the water film immediately restablish itself and he wouldn't even notice anything but maybe a shudder. Likewise, we cannot comprehend these other dimensions but maybe shamen can glimpse it; much like being able to take the amoeba's life force from his single cell trap and lift him so he can see the ball coming. He still wouldn't have a clue what it was, but at least he could witness it. Likewise the shamen; and he blieves that the Unified Spirit field manifest itself as animals so he can undertsand it. Interesting that some cave paintings have animals that could not possibly exist in the regions yet existed on different part of the planet: Giraffes for example in cave paintings in 10 000 BC America. The thing is they may be metaphysical giraffes.

 

 

Now if quantum phyiscs can be accepted as a device to understand universal field , why can't religion do the same for the simpler mind? The Holy spirit for example many theologians say is the spirit of God in everything...every rock animal plant particle light everything. And that it is living. Now yes, when that idea is used to say God is spying and assessing you, or in terms of Buddhism if you don't get the idea you get to be a slug in th next life, then yes that is mumbo jumbo. Believe it if you like; as long as you don't force it on others. BUT in a sense our options are infinite. And maybe, just maybe...people like Moses were actually tuned into the spirit world and were "guided"; and so he and others could understand the UF, it manifests itself in what the human brain can comprehend. But yes ; 90% of religion is then corrupted for power.

 

 

I could leave here now and step in front of a car. Or I could stay here and be hit by a meteorite, or I could go and make tea, or stay on the net. I have free will. BUT the assessment of my decisions will be made in the infinite possibilities I take. I create different universes with every decision.

In some of those I will cease to exist....but the energy I have is still there in parallel universes, of bcoming part of the whole again. That is what quantum physics should have been trying to explore. They are not in the same space time continuum BUT they are part of the same energy field.

So the cat in te box is alive and dead at the same time; BUT in each string of time or bubble of space he will be one or the other. But waht gives us all life is th energy in the sun. light, gravity etc, and what gives us form is particles. In a very real sense something said "Let there be light" and travelled by tunnel into the big bang to make it happen.

 

Now it only gets metaphysical if you start thinking about good and evil or negative and positive; and these may exist as just concepts in the human brain. On the other hand, the decisions you take guide you as an individual to your own destiny: but we all will one day become part of the unified field and out of the contstrains of the brain. Will we be conscious there? Will we will be part of what makes the universe tick; conscious or not.

 

So. Now you are a Jedi.

[Guest]

Or if you prefer, an Animist.

Incidentally, smoking is seen by all animist cultures as a purifier.

 

So I may have religious grounds for objecting to the smoking ban. What has happened re native americans on that score anyone know?

[Guest]

Oh My God.

 

This experiment in Switzerland Mr M....is it the one where they will do the alleged USS Eldridge experiment on the bullets?

 

So the grassy knoll was Switzerland.

 

Oh My God they killed Kennedy. You B*******s!

 

http://www.poster.net/south-park/south-park-oh-my-god-they-killed-kenny-3700222.jpg

[Guest]

Oh I see. We are back to "particles". Still a gun though essentially. A "god" gun.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061216111140.htm

 

And it is the same expriment that essentially was allegedly performed using the USS Eldridge.

 

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

 

If my F****** cat ends up inside out cos of this there will be trouble.

 

EDIT:

so this "particle" they want to "bring forth" and create a mini big bang. Presumably, they think they can stabilise it.

 

Now I don't know, but I think that if this "particle" that gives mass, which exists only in theory and in another dimension, comes from that other dimension it will leave a little hole. Which I assume they think they will also be able to stabilise.

Hmph.

I've seen this contraption before.

 

Cue the Gould:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/stargate1.jpg

 

Anyway it may be worth getting on with the bookies at huge odds because they may just prove the existence of an afterlife. Because if it works and everything is hunky dory, and unified field is proved a reality, then that is exactly what it does prove. 'll bet anything the punter is a scientist. And if something goes wrong? Maybe a bigger bang than they expect. Cue new universe starting miniature but maybe not staying so; or a black hole.

 

On a serious note: quote mr Mockle:

such as the dualist notion of a distinction between mind and matter rather than the concept of mind being a manifestion of matter.

 

End quote

 

No...what I am saying...or rather paraphrasing what the likes of Hawking and Einstein are saying...is that if there is a unified field, then matter is the creation of it rather than vie versa which is normaly assumed.

 

Its the old ice cream thing again. Most traditional physics says:

 

"There is a relationship between increased ice cream sales and summer, therefore we think ice cream causes hot weather"

 

What most quantum physicists are saying is:

"well we set about trying to prove the reverse was true, but in fact we don't car either way because we are really enjoying discussing the aesthetic qualities of the ice cream, and wondering what it tases like in a different dimension"

 

And what Unified Field Theorists are saying is that it is the hot weather that causes the ice cream. And if that is true...someone MUST be making the ice cream

 

errrr...bad metaphor but you get the drift: the mind is a function of the particles within it, BUT something has arranged that matter in such a way to provide that to happen; indeed it is the energy that is important not the matter.

 

That leads me on to Consciousness. The human mind is merely a manifestation of its sensory organs. It is impossible therefore, to see the world in the way birds or cats see it.

Some birds see a far greater range of colours . They see ultra violet spectrum.

Whales perceptions of the world are with sonar. Impossible for us to imagine.

 

Well cats...they see in my opinion...energy. They are unable to detect a dead spider without any smell....unless you move it. Unless they feel like playing, they will ignore it....indeed, they can't see it or focus on its stillness. Somehow...and from great distance, they can differentiate between movement of living things...prey or threat...and say moving foliage. BUT when you turn on a tap they are fascinated. Now they know that there is no prey there, but they cannot help going for it. Its because of the energy of the water gushing out. I observe them trying to work it out. They are seeing something that we do not....some kind of energy ripple or aura ; maybe. They know its water, but its acting in a way which is causing a sensory reaction. Maybe its heightned perception of light in the movement of the water. And you know how they sometimes stare (dogs too) at an empty space and hiss meow (or bark) ? Well they are seeing something we do not too; something they are designed to tune into: energy aura.

 

Trying to imagine how such animals perceive reality is difficult....but it helps us think outside the box if we do; and realise that we can only sense or understand a subjective view of the universe. What quantum physics as a discipline seems to be suggesting however, is that if a man is blind, then light does not exist. Almost the opposite of what it was initially trying to demonstrate.

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

I'm sure that Einstein had many reasons for wanting to befriend Marilyn Monroe; he was a smart man after all. You don't need to be a reknown theoretical physicist to find her appealling.

 

But back on to the subject of discussion and there is an interesting article in this week's New Scientist magazine (Vol 194 No 2609, 23rd June 2007) titled "Reality Check" which touches on some of Einstein's theories and the search for the theory of everything which looks to combine gravity and quantum theory - and concludes that we may have to re-examine our approach to the question. But, again, even if such a unification theory is found, it will only help science (and us) to understand "how" the universe works, not "why" it was formed. And whether a solution is found doesn't tell us whether there is a "God" or not, except to people who wish to interpret a finding as such and personify or worship it. The use of the term "spirit" is ambigious too, as you use it to refer to both "energy" in the scientific sense and what in a more religious sense would be called "soul"; a theory to merge the scienitifc "energy" with the religious "soul" is not covered by the Theory of Everything (so perhaps the theory's name is incorrect). The phrases "good" and "evil" in their moral terminology are irrelevant in science whereas "negative" and "positive" do of course carry less debatable significance.

 

The concept of multiverses is an intriguing one but so far just that - a concept. We only have one source to measure and experiment within which is the universe in which we currently exist and can neither prove or disprove the existence of parallel universes (or serial universes, although this is deemed less likely) as we are unable to observe or measure them. I don't follow your statement that actions create other universes; they affect the one in which we exist. Unless of course you or others have the ability to create your own universes - might explain the phrase "personal God".

 

The CERN website has some more information on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC): www.cern.ch - which should help to explain the experiments they are planning for it and calm some of the more alarmist fears of their work. The Philadelphia Experiment wiki link again suggests a question of the article's neutrality and the film wasn't much good either; modern science fiction films like "Primer" (and to some degree "Pi") offer a more thought-provoking view on related science topics.

 

We'd best leave the ice cream metaphors - in case we start running into Walls (boom boom!) - but the consciousness and animal senses and understanding points are worth some discussion. We can get an impression of some animal senses as we have been able to create devices to interpret signals that certain animals can detect into ones that we can detect. We have created sonar and radar devices which provide us with a visual output that we can comprehend. Seeing into the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum is also possible and we have a range of devices (mostly if not solely visual) to help us interpret those signals. We have telescopes, binoculars, microscopes and magnifiers to help us see objects in greater detail at various distances although admittedly at less speed of adjustment than for other species. A cat's fascination with the tap may be as much due to Clarke's third law - "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - as a sense of something beyond our ken around the flowing water. True, it's accepted that there are a range of strange phenomena that are as yet unexplained and other animals do appear to detect things that we cannot; maybe akin to synesthesia. Perhaps evolution has removed such senses (or the brain's capacity to detect or interpret them) from us over time as they have not proved useful to our survival.

 

Good luck with your attempts to fight the smoking ban on religious grounds; any success might be enough to convert Ms Mockle to Animism.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

Let me take the cat first. Quote Mr M:

 

A cat's fascination with the tap may be as much due to Clarke's third law - "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - as a sense of something beyond our ken around the flowing water.

 

This would mean that a cat is able to conceptualise. I think it is a possibility (curiosity and cats have long been observed to go together). BUT if that is so we have to rethink the whole way we think about some animals. Most animals ignore what they do not understand; or respond to it with a set of behaviour paterns (fear, sexual interest, salivation etc) .

 

So can cats think about something and classify it as magic...or indeed, try to understand it? Possibly. The cat has worked out that the key to the water flow is the tap BUT while he can meaow for me to turn it on again, he is unable to do it himself. BUT it is impossible for him to work out that the tap is not a natural phenomena. Who created the tap and what its function is is beyond his mental grasp.

 

Well likewise, at the moment....and throughout history....the question of the Function of the universe is/has been , beyond our grasp.

 

The nearest any religion has come to explaining it or understanding it in "religious" terms is as we are both agreed on is Animism. It for example realised the Earth has "fields" operating (lay lines, magnetic field whatever) way before physical science worked it out. It is why some shamen see themselves as scientists and have warmed to the idea of universal field theory and say "told you so".

 

I do not see a problem in differentiating between soul spirit energy etc. They are all the same IF there is a universal field yes?

 

So, let us take the example of the Spirit Hore in Native American culture.

When a horse dies it is used to being in a large powerful body. Suddenly, on point of death it is without that body, and it has no way of understanding that. So Native Americans have to make the horse a "vessel" in which to travel to the spirit world. The vessel is made form wood, furs, coyote claws, bear teeth whatever organic material is at hand that reflects the horses personality (ie if a horse digs with his hoof a badger claw may be appropriate). Then the horse is decorated , fused, with the horses own organic material: hair form the mane and tail. SO the horse can see it has bonded with nature in both a physical and spirit sense. When it understands this, the horse can "disperse" into the energy field and be happy in the spirit world. If this does not happen, it can wander angry and frightened.

Now. I can't prove this happens scientifically. But thre is no doubt that energy "leaves" the body on point of dath in all animals. This HAS been measured as a charge dispersing up to several feet away, by scientists. Indeed, it has often upset monitors in hospitals and that is why they have ben trying to work ut what it is. SOME scientists have seen it as the nearest proof of existence of human soul. It also explains for example why watches worn by the patient are often seen to stop at the time of death.

Back to the horse. I have been present often when horses have died. Other people will also confirm strange events. I think there is a scientific explanation for this if the energy if universal field theory is correct. Think of it as the energy dispersed when a light bulb goes out. Where does that energy go?

Well I and others have observed hoof marks on empty stable doors, uprooted trees (often a favouite tree of the horse for shade) and hearing hoofsteps and whinneys (everyone knows their own horses whinney) and even felt whiffles on them) . Human ghosts may be elusive: but horses ghosts are far from it.

When a friends horse died on the racecourse, at the point of death the horses legs began to move as though it were running, and then graduallly and peacefully came to a halt. However what happend then was far from peaceful One vet was knocked flying by an invisible force and a fence builder exclaimed loudly. He saidd he felt the horse "run through him". The vet said, something like a wind knocked me over but there was no wind". That was the first time I witnessed this. Since, I have seen it a dozen times...similar.

So in my opinion something physical and real is being observd here, and explains WHY the Native Americans feel obliged to make spirit horses. They are like an "earthing" device for the horses massive energy.

 

So whether you believe this or not, what I am suggesting is that Animism sees no difference between the soul spirit and universal field. It is like saying that lightbulbs energy is solely in the bulb. It isn't....its in the electrcity it is plugged into. Likewise, the soul is part of the universal field.

 

Now....you suggest that discovery of the Univrsl field wil only explain HOW the universe works, not why.

This is what I would dispute.

What it will discover is the FUNCTION of the universe. That matter is a vehicle for energy. It attempts to produce the particle responsible for forming matter (in the big bang) from a different dimension. If succesful, it will explain WHY matter exists, and prove that all energy is connected. Not just how then, but also why.

Well, in terms of why the universe was created, and the function of all matter and energy. Okay that is miles off the notion of proving a gry bearded dity. BUT it is not so far off proving the Animist notion of God as energy and creator and redistributor and as Hawking suggests...referee.

[Guest]

Now. Martin Lefevre is an eminent philosopher. Here is a problem with what he says, couched in his critique of 2001 a Space Odyssey:

 

Quote:

The essential flaw in the book and film, and my point of departure with it as a young man prone to non-drug-induced

[Guest]

And yes anti smoking laws potentially cause religious opression:

 

The function of smoking is explained here. In Animist culture, there is no real difference between smoking sweetgrass to bless a spirit horse, or smoking tobacco in a social circle.

 

http://www.spiritcrossing.org/index.php?Itemid=39&id=27&option=com_content&task=view

 

What happens if the catholic church needs to do an exorcism in a place of work now?

 

ANY smoking material is banned under the law in the UK...don't know about the US.

 

And also, if Universal field theory is correct, and animists are right on this, we are also turning workplaces into places where "evil" can thrive because of inbalance of energy.

[LordTheNightKnight]

I have a problem with your argument, not the content (smoking and religion), but the form, namely the term "potentially cause". You can't base an argument on a "could". That's the slippery slope fallacy. Better arguments involve "is" and "will".

 

For example "Banning smoking materials of any kind IS a violation of religious freedom (assuming the nation in question has legal religious freedom) and a need for human health. It WILL prevent accepted use of otherwise harmless materials in religious practices, such as a peace pipe. It also means medicinal uses of smoking are not allowed, thus it WILL prevent people from needed medical treatment."

 

See the difference between "potential" and "actually does"?

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

When a horse dies it is used to being in a large powerful body. Suddenly, on point of death it is without that body, and it has no way of understanding that. So Native Americans have to make the horse a "vessel" in which to travel to the spirit world. The vessel is made form wood, furs, coyote claws, bear teeth whatever organic material is at hand that reflects the horses personality (ie if a horse digs with his hoof a badger claw may be appropriate). Then the horse is decorated , fused, with the horses own organic material: hair form the mane and tail. SO the horse can see it has bonded with nature in both a physical and spirit sense. When it understands this, the horse can "disperse" into the energy field and be happy in the spirit world. If this does not happen, it can wander angry and frightened.

 

I think I see plenty of unanswered questions here. If as Animists believe, the horse's "spirit" leaves the body on death, what happens to the physical body? Why would the horse's spirit care about a different vessel if they left their original body? How long does it take for the people to create such a vessel - and how far would the "spirit" have travelled in that time? Or are such vessels created for all living things at the time of their birth - or maybe when they are conceived? (how do they feel about unborn feotuses?) Would they only create such vessels for beings that have their respect or love - what is the threshold between a creature requiring ("needing") such a vessel and not? Is it dependant on species or time of familiarity? Would such peoples do the same for rivals slain in conflicts? If the last person of such a community died or a lone traveller died alone, would their animal companions and those who happen across them create a similar vessel for them? What happens to this vessel after it is created? Is it burned, buried, cast adrfit at sea? Aren't they then, in effect, kiling the being for a second time? Would they then need to build a new vessel for the "spirit", and so on ad infinitum?

 

A similar question for the animist shamen: science would agree the earth has magnetic fields, the polarity of which changes every so often (is is either due to change again or has recently changed). Do they have an explaination for this - as you suggest they might if they have been right for years before science? Would this affect their behaviour with respect to their ley lines - as they believe all such energies to be connected? Would "spirits" still leave the bodies in the same way or ywould their behaviour change too?

 

Rather than confirm all of the experiments planned by CERN with the large hadron collider I would suggest again that you go to their website for further information - www.cern.ch - and the ATLAS experiment in particular - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS. If I read it correctly, they are searching for a particle (the Higgs Boson particle) which they believe exists but have not been able to record; there is further information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model. But none of these experiements will prove or disprove a divine entity or spirit or intelligent design, whether they find this missing particle (according to the current theory) or not.

 

And also, if Universal field theory is correct, and animists are right on this, we are also turning workplaces into places where "evil" can thrive because of inbalance of energy.

I wouldn't agree with this statement on several reasons, one being that "evil" is a subjective opinion so some might see this as "good". Surely for a balance of energy, there should be some "evil" as a balance to some "good". Too much "good" would also be an inbalance - so forcing people to smoke (or smoke more) would also be "evil" - or "good" depending on your point of view. Maybe there is enough "evil" being done in certain workplaces where a balance of "good" from a smoking ban would be helpful.

 

Oh, and science has already researched ghosts too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y070jbJuVs

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

I have a problem with your argument, not the content (smoking and religion), but the form, namely the term "potentially cause". You can't base an argument on a "could". That's the slippery slope fallacy. Better arguments involve "is" and "will".

 

For example "Banning smoking materials of any kind IS a violation of religious freedom (assuming the nation in question has legal religious freedom) and a need for human health. It WILL prevent accepted use of otherwise harmless materials in religious practices, such as a peace pipe. It also means medicinal uses of smoking are not allowed, thus it WILL prevent people from needed medical treatment."

 

See the difference between "potential" and "actually does"?

 

Lord you CAN indeed base an argument on "could". You do not cross the road without looking as it "Could" kill you.

 

I can't say it DOES as I do not have any evidence of a direct conflict thus far as presumably native americans have autonomy on this matter.

 

Also the latter point is a step too far. For example, if one argues that smoking for relief of motor neurone diseases will be compromised, this is not really an argument since they can smoke at home or in the street.

Whereas. the practice of smoking as a social event cleansing places of work IS compromised POTENTIALLY. Has it happened yet? I do not know.

 

Anyway, this part of the argument is thrown up as a discussion point not a major argument. Its a "does it "not a "it does".

[Guest]

One bit at a time.

Quote:

I think I see plenty of unanswered questions here. If as Animists believe, the horse's "spirit" leaves the body on death, what happens to the physical body? Why would the horse's spirit care about a different vessel if they left their original body? How long does it take for the people to create such a vessel - and how far would the "spirit" have travelled in that time? Or are such vessels created for all living things at the time of their birth - or maybe when they are conceived? (how do they feel about unborn feotuses?) Would they only create such vessels for beings that have their respect or love - what is the threshold between a creature requiring ("needing") such a vessel and not? Is it dependant on species or time of familiarity? Would such peoples do the same for rivals slain in conflicts? If the last person of such a community died or a lone traveller died alone, would their animal companions and those who happen across them create a similar vessel for them? What happens to this vessel after it is created? Is it burned, buried, cast adrfit at sea? Aren't they then, in effect, kiling the being for a second time? Would they then need to build a new vessel for the "spirit", and so on ad infinitum?

 

 

END QUOTE

 

Maybe I explained it badly. The horse is an elemental spirit in a huge powerful body that has come to rely on the human as a child does, and on the other hand serves him as a friend and fellow warrior, hunting accomplice etc. So its an obligation only to the horse. A human is not as disturbed by death as in their culture the spirit world has no fear for them: so there is no need to do it.

But its a shock to a horse that he is without physical presence.

I don't know why the spirit leaves the body on death. It is scientifically measurable as a charge IF you believe that is what the soul is...as indeed som scientists are suggesting.

The spirit horse "earths" the horses soul to the rest of the "universal field"

BUT it leaves behind in the vessel a residual energy. People keep them as remonders of their horse; they are considered good luck as they are to the touch apparently highly charged. I have had children (and adults) pick them up as they think they are toys and then recoil exclaiming "it feels alive". They think its a toy and EVERYONE realises on touch it is not....and is sacred. I challenge anyone to say it is not so.

http://www.sdhistory.org/mus/LogoCrop.jpg

As usual, western knowldge misinterprets it slightly:

http://www.sdhistory.org/mus/mus_eff.htm

 

http://www.mtrushmoretshirts.com/images/horse.jpg

 

They are incredibly beautiful, somehow "charged" and used in ritual and dance. Several American racehorse trainers collect them and get one done when their horse dies.

 

A horse is incredibly important to aborginal people. Indeed it is to all cultures prior to the motor car and much of human civilisation is owed to the horse. Its the least we can do t honour it is t make its passage into the spirit world easier; and in turn, he leaves behind a little of his power.

Much in the same way that we honour an animal we have respect for by wearing its fur. This is why native cultures have no problem with wearing husky fur or horse skin BUT they do not kill the animal for this reason.

 

The horse gets to the spirit world eventually anyway; but they can do a fair a mount of damage as a discontented soul until it does. As I said. I have observed this; many times. You can believe it or not.

[Guest]

Quote:

Rather than confirm all of the experiments planned by CERN with the large hadron collider I would suggest again that you go to their website for further information - www.cern.ch - and the ATLAS experiment in particular - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS. If I read it correctly, they are searching for a particle (the Higgs Boson particle) which they believe exists but have not been able to record; there is further information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model. But none of these experiements will prove or disprove a divine entity or spirit or intelligent design, whether they find this missing particle (according to the current theory) or not.

 

End Quote

 

This is the particle that creates matter. It is "the creator". That is why I said they seek to isolate the "monolith" as the Higgs Boyson was metaphorically envisaged for the movie .

 

As I said, whether you believe that "Creation" is conscious or not is irrelevant and difficult for us to conceive as our own consciousness struggles to understand even animals we observe daily let alone what may be a completely different kind of cpnsciousness. We are trapped in our own bodies and only understand with the limits of our own senses.

 

But, the Higgs Boyson particle IS the creator; or rather, a particle of it.

 

The function IS creation. The Higgs Boson particle performs that function.

It is therefore, divine, and shows that the universe is not a massive accident of acidental events but an operating programme. It will prove universal field and therfore prove the Animist notion of a spirit world that exists alongside us inside us and all things.

 

Changing Polarity and other fiedl changes can produce inbalance. Its why periodcally smoking is needed.

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

I feel we are reaching an end to our rather enjoyable discussion here as we seem to be at a stalemate in the discussion in particular reference to the two points:

 

1. We disagree that animals (including humans) have a "spirit" that lives on separately and consciously from the body after their physical death; you believe such a "spirit" exists, I disagree.

 

2. We disagree that the proof of the Unified Field Theory (or possibly the Standard Model or the Theory of Everything) will reveal the "creator" of the universe; you believe that it will and will also prove intelligent design by means of an operating programme, I disagree that it would prove either.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

ToS,

 

I feel we are reaching an end to our rather enjoyable discussion here as we seem to be at a stalemate in the discussion in particular reference to the two points:

 

1. We disagree that animals (including humans) have a "spirit" that lives on separately and consciously from the body after their physical death; you believe such a "spirit" exists, I disagree.

 

2. We disagree that the proof of the Unified Field Theory (or possibly the Standard Model or the Theory of Everything) will reveal the "creator" of the universe; you believe that it will and will also prove intelligent design by means of an operating programme, I disagree that it would prove either.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

 

I agree it has been enjoyable.

However, the two points you have isolated as our disagreements are purely a misundertsanding.

 

IF there is universal field, it is in everything. IF we think of that as spiritual energy it is most certainly in all living things (and even rocks....hence the animist position being easily compared to UFT). IF that energy is isolated in the body as aseries of electro chemical signals what happens to that energy when we die? No physicist would agree that it ceases to be sicne energy cannot cease to be: merely transform.

 

Likewise, the partciles we are discussing IF they exist are what creates matter . Proof of such partcile exisence also provs the big bang theory and the universal field.

 

The rest is a value judgement. I may see it as proof of creation and divinity WITHOUT placing value on that: I am not saying it is conscious in the sense we are conscious. It may be conscious far beyong what we can imagine as conciousness, or it may be happening unconsciously. BUT we would be agreed that it does explain the universe. So it appears that the only thing we disagree on is that in this case, How? and Why? for me are one and the same. BUT what it does disprove is that all this is the result of mathematical accident and energy and matter relate to each other only in Newtonian terms.

 

I do not however believe that the spirit lives on as a "sperate" entity since it was never seperate in the first place: just apparently so within the confines of a body; as a "conscious" lightbulb would be unaware of the National grid. Of course the light bulb in itself cannot work without the electricity.

 

The energy in you and I and the horse are part of the same field as light and magnetism etc. We are one with the universe. That is all animism believes. There is no "God" as a seperate deity as it just sees the Universal field as god. Yes the rest is superstition and mumbo jumbo in OUR western eyes. BUT a shamen believes himself a scientist. So his encouragement of the spirit horse is as real to them based on observation repeated experiment and conclusion as it was to Benjamin Franklyn with lighning : energy goes to earth more quickly via a suitable conducor.

 

Where we differ is in terms of consciousness and I agree we can never prove or disprove that unless we have been there. Of course, western science has never tried...until now. But shamen science goes there for a living.

We will know...or not know...when we die...but that is irrelevant since we are not important: merely a lightbulb in the national grid and the energy that was flowing through us flows around the grid instead. That is all I mean by "Spirit".

 

 

May I ask you Mr Mockle. Do you feel nothing different in touch between real fur and fake fur? I actually wouln't mind betting a scientist who put his mind to it could find more energy present in the first there than the latter. And I feel that most of us can tune into this.

[frugalfurguy]

Woah! Watch out my brethren and cystren. That ole' Saytan is one hell'o a crafty faker. He cudda had some lackeys make all those die know soar bones in some workshop on another planet then cart 'em all here in a flying saucer just so he can fool people who think they're smart crackin' open rocks to figure out what the Bah bull says with abserloot Sir tan T: God didn't make no Die know soars. Everything God made Adam named on the eighth day of earth's existins. Now 'f we cudda burned Darwin at the steak before Saytan turned him into a Fill thee mouthpiece of Evil Loo Shun that'd've been a Barbie Q. to remember.

 

Don't you dar fridicyool a fuddlementalist, cause God said we're you hair 'o tick's masssturz! Didgeu here me? I said DON'T YOU DAR FRIDICYOOL A FUDDLEMENTALIST, CAUSE GOD SAID WE'RE YOU HAIR 'O TICK'S MASSTURZ! Even the Prezdunt noes that!

[LordTheNightKnight]

I have a problem with your argument, not the content (smoking and religion), but the form, namely the term "potentially cause". You can't base an argument on a "could". That's the slippery slope fallacy. Better arguments involve "is" and "will".

 

For example "Banning smoking materials of any kind IS a violation of religious freedom (assuming the nation in question has legal religious freedom) and a need for human health. It WILL prevent accepted use of otherwise harmless materials in religious practices, such as a peace pipe. It also means medicinal uses of smoking are not allowed, thus it WILL prevent people from needed medical treatment."

 

See the difference between "potential" and "actually does"?

 

Lord you CAN indeed base an argument on "could". You do not cross the road without looking as it "Could" kill you.

 

I can't say it DOES as I do not have any evidence of a direct conflict thus far as presumably native americans have autonomy on this matter.

 

Also the latter point is a step too far. For example, if one argues that smoking for relief of motor neurone diseases will be compromised, this is not really an argument since they can smoke at home or in the street.

Whereas. the practice of smoking as a social event cleansing places of work IS compromised POTENTIALLY. Has it happened yet? I do not know.

 

Anyway, this part of the argument is thrown up as a discussion point not a major argument. Its a "does it "not a "it does".

 

That is not the form of your argument. Looking both ways is a precaution, but you are arguing not to do something at all, not taking precautions.

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

May I ask you Mr Mockle. Do you feel nothing different in touch between real fur and fake fur? I actually wouln't mind betting a scientist who put his mind to it could find more energy present in the first there than the latter. And I feel that most of us can tune into this.

 

I think my love for fur has always been more visual than tactile and although I can certainly detect a difference between real and fake fur and between different types (and to some degree, quality) of furs, I don't think I have a special "tingle" as such when I touch real fur than I don't receive when I touch fake fur.

 

I have heard mention of such "energy" from furs possibly being due to something like static electricity or maybe electromagnetism, a charge created by rubbing the fur possibly similar to the effect of rubbing a balloon against wool. Such sensations are still rather personal and affect people in different ways, as do other such phenomena such as sensing (not solely audibly) the hum of electrical devices. I'm willing to accept that this might just be a scientific explanation or interpretation (and maybe not a very good one) - and that others may have different interpretations and names for the same or similar effects.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle