What do you believe is true, but cannot prove?

Have you seen the study at Stanford and Yale on how "normal" people can torture others?

It doesn't take much knowledge of history, even American history, to see that democracy is an oxymoron.

Do you believe America has equality for all?

What is your opinion about president Trump? Do you understand why he was elected our president?



Trump doesn't understand our Constitution. It's only a matter of time before he resigns or is impeached.

Hi cicerone,

I'm not interested in politics and I haven't red that study you mentioned.

I believe that society the way I know it is a rotten **** pile.

Regardless of the format, the leaders are always curropt, or they would refuse to lead.

I'm here to transform myself as much as society would permit me, I know it's in my way, but I'm not here to change my circumstances,
I'm here to change myself.

If humans will ever become enlightened,
I assume, there would be no need for authority and government, as at this pure state, there is no evil, neither temptation.
All the wicked cruelty that takes place,
Is not the work of humans, but of a dysfunctional emotional ego within them, to Wich they are just as enslaved and manipulated, as the people exposed to their tyranny.

Actually, I don't worry about politics at all. It doesn't matter who our president is in how my life is affected; mostly not.
The funny thing is, I have voted in every election since I was 18 years old. It didn't matter whether the president was the one I voted for or not.
I guess it's a matter of doing our civic duty.

1 - Thar there is Fate.
2 - That we live in a simulation.
3 - That there isn't any actual infinity.
4 - That the (Master) Universe (simulations aside) has a cyclic looping algorithm into its process and its essentially timeless.
5 - That belief systems of all kinds including organized Religions are as essential to society like sleeping and dreaming is essential to the individual.

Yes, you are correct about this.

There is a difference between an objects momentum within an atmosphere vs vacuum.

Gravity pressing the object in motion against another object, ie. the ground creating friction which causes a loss in energy. Time doesn't seem to restrict this in any way.

Acceleration of an object is easier in a vacuum as well. If time plays a role it should be clear.

Time just seems to be entropy of the system but I'm not even certain that this is the case. Time could just be a dimension that crosses through spacial dimensions.

I'm not sure how that relates to my supposition.

It doesnt. Hes forgetting that inertia is the response of a body acting AGAINST its continual movement. Media is immaterial to thaat and we can calculate the force. We do this all the time in computing gravity acceleration

I am convinced that ARCHEA, of extreme simplicity, still exist in remote "hidy holes" of the planets environment and will, when found, provide evidence that "creation" occurred many more times than once on earth.

I can understand the thinking that it might exist and we haven't found it yet, but if the simplicity is that extreme, you would think we could build it ourselves in the lab. It isn't for lack of trying..

Of course when and if we do build it, it won't settle our argument. ID will obviously be involved.

I believe, but cannot prove, that such ARCHEA will never be created by natural causes.

I do find it ironic that Fil's view of 'conservation of complexity' and farmer's conjecture about the ease with which 'creation' occurs are so close.

There is nothing odd when you take max or min entropy in a evolving system when time passing is considered.
The problem is ppl not understanding that time passing may not be fundamental ontology just like moving pictures in a film don't show up out of nowhere. The film is a full existing block already.

And every good film has a director. How do you like this one?

Perhaps there is a film of all possible films...I ain't calling that block stone logos god anytime soon. At least not in the traditional sense.

Well damn! Don't keep us waiting, Spill man

You insist in separating creator and creation. The block film has all states of possible logos. That **** is an unmoving dead stone. Not your thinking feeling god...

That is an available option in this film

Its a state of affairs not an option. You call god perfect but I understand perfection in a way you will never will. For one perfection entails all possible states exist such that no actual computation/motion is ontologically Fundamental."God" does not need to think future states of affairs. THEY ALL ARE! (present tense)

More Irony..

A2K's most ardent atheist promoting this song.

Don't pot shot. Address the depth of the debate where I left it if you can...

again , the "ease" by which chemicals bind is more a subject of the origins of the elements beyond Lithium. That took a several step process that could include a "Dark" period similar to genesis.
1. The big bang merely was a starting line in which the initial inflation was a burst of "creation of hydrogen"

2.For hundreds of millions of yers the universe expanded, cooled, and darkened in a growing , darkening, bubble.

3The big transformation was where the actual origins of the elements occured by (hypotheses is) a "knot of hydrogen begat some helium and the increasing intercations caused increasing density ions to appear.This occured in several hundred generations of proto -stars creating heavier and heavier elements ( with a concommitant percentage bulk increase of such elements as iron and aluminum and carbon). We now routinely analyze the spectra of stars to see those low in Fe because those are the very oldest.(Since Starmpper WE have ways to best map out the generational ages of the galaxies in the observable universe by means other than jut Leavitt or Hubble "candles)

4These ions were the heavy elements each with a pattern of bonding and surface reaction. Radioactive and stable isotopes of all elements were formed by increasing densification and explosions of what became known s stqrs and galaxies.


Genesis is a fairly simplistic but easily understood story of what is a much more complex growth pang. Science really has no argument to dissuade you. (However, science is really not in the business to make myths coincide with discipline).

When PENZIAS AND WILSON mapped the Cosmic Background Radiation over time after the big bang, it took a few years later to translate that this map is not seen in the visible spectrum, its a map of an increasingly darker void.Waiting for the "Big Trans"