Today's Lesson: Jesus lights the Sun moon and stars

[_Chap]

....what is a colour?

I gather from the way you write in this and your similar questions "what is a photon?" and "what is blue" that what you claim to be looking for here is an answer that will define the entities referred to in some ultimate way by giving a definition of their essence, an answer about whose meaning there can be no further question. You will not get such answers from modern science, which (unlike some of its predecessors) does not attempt that kind of thing.

Your other attempts to say that in effect anything can mean anything make me think of what Wittgenstein said at the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

Good advice there.

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!


No, I asked what a Photon was for a different reason to that of asking what a colour is!

I really wanted to know if you actually knew what a Photon is.

Whereas I asked what a colour is to point out that when you really think about it, it begins to become meaningless.

I was teaching people about photons before you were born.

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

[_JonasS]

[...]

If you look deep into the structures of everything, there is little difference between us and the table because everything is made of sub atomic particals and even sub sub atomic particals. Every proton is identical, it is how it is combined and the electron arangement that makes the difference.

Congratulations. You have just re-invented what is known as 'reductionism'. But people are different from tables in ways which cannot be contained in any finite statement about the state, motion or position of elementary particles, and have properties which cannot be possessed by such particles in isolation. That is why not many people today find this a very interesting point of view.

And Yes, why can't Jesus be the source of some pretty nasty stuff? To us they may be nasty, but HIV may be positive in some other area.

From Alexander Pope's Essay on Man:

All nature is but art unknown to thee;
All chance, direction which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good;
And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,
One truth is clear, “Whatever IS, is RIGHT.

It's a point of view, and one prevalent amongst some religious people. But now you say:

HIV might be a creation of God it'self. God created everything, it cannot be that God created only that which is good, and if Jesus created by instruction of God then why couldn't he make disease?

This is a different view from the one you have just advanced. Previously you seemed to be saying that "nasty stuff" properly understood can be good. Now you seems to be saying it is bad, but God still created it. In the course of so doing you 'solve' the problem of evil by saying God had no alternative to creating it.

Could you try to stick to one clear point and state it clearly? This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a forum for free association prose composition.

I am not stating my views. I use the words MIGHT and MAY, I am throwing around ideas, not stating my explicit views regarding such things.

[_JonasS]

....what is a colour?

I gather from the way you write in this and your similar questions "what is a photon?" and "what is blue" that what you claim to be looking for here is an answer that will define the entities referred to in some ultimate way by giving a definition of their essence, an answer about whose meaning there can be no further question. You will not get such answers from modern science, which (unlike some of its predecessors) does not attempt that kind of thing.

Your other attempts to say that in effect anything can mean anything make me think of what Wittgenstein said at the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus : "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

Good advice there.

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!


No, I asked what a Photon was for a different reason to that of asking what a colour is!

I really wanted to know if you actually knew what a Photon is.

Whereas I asked what a colour is to point out that when you really think about it, it begins to become meaningless.

I was teaching people about photons before you were born.

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

Are you trying to bring out the Ad Hom in me?

So teach me what a Photon is then. And when was I born?

The concept isn't meaningless, but the word is, this isn't an argument about concept, I am stating that a word in the Bible may mean something totally different to how it is interpreted and therefore Adam MAY NOT BE MAN as we know it. I am not arguing the concept of a word, but rather that the interpretation of the Bible may not be as it was intended to be when an idea in ones mind before being written.

[_harmony]

I was teaching people about photons before you were born.

Foul. This was not necessary nor does it add to the discussion. Jonas is making points; you may not like her points, but she's making them. It does you no credit to try to put a thumb on her. It just makes you look like you've just realized you aren't making your points clearly enough.

Might does not make right. Your attempt to belittle her does you no credit. That you would use this tactic puts you in the same box as DCP. Are you sure you want to use his tactics on someone who isn't using the same tactics on you?

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

Perhaps she isn't expressing herself as well as she could, but you have no business dismissing her.

[_JonasS]

Thanks Harmony.

[_Some Schmo]

I was teaching people about photons before you were born.

Foul. This was not necessary nor does it add to the discussion. Jonas is making points; you may not like her points, but she's making them. It does you no credit to try to put a thumb on her. It just makes you look like you've just realized you aren't making your points clearly enough.

Might does not make right. Your attempt to belittle her does you no credit. That you would use this tactic puts you in the same box as DCP. Are you sure you want to use his tactics on someone who isn't using the same tactics on you?

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

Perhaps she isn't expressing herself as well as she could, but you have no business dismissing her.

Hmmm... I thought he was actually being nice about it, given the things she's posted. If he had dismissed her, why would he even bother to respond?

If words can mean anything, they end up meaning nothing. Why even go down that road? You have to draw the line somewhere.

[_harmony]

I was teaching people about photons before you were born.

Foul. This was not necessary nor does it add to the discussion. Jonas is making points; you may not like her points, but she's making them. It does you no credit to try to put a thumb on her. It just makes you look like you've just realized you aren't making your points clearly enough.

Might does not make right. Your attempt to belittle her does you no credit. That you would use this tactic puts you in the same box as DCP. Are you sure you want to use his tactics on someone who isn't using the same tactics on you?

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

Perhaps she isn't expressing herself as well as she could, but you have no business dismissing her.

Hmmm... I thought he was actually being nice about it, given the things she's posted. If he had dismissed her, why would he even bother to respond?

But then you weren't the one being told to sit down and shut up, which is essentially what he meant when he said he'd been teaching about photons since before she was born. "Sit down and shut up. I'm older than you, I know more than you, and you're a little pipsqueak."

Perhaps had he told you he'd been teaching about something since before you were born, in an obvious attempt to get you to sit down and shut up, you'd see it a bit differently.

That's what Daniel does, when he pulls out the "I know so-and-so" and "PhD" this and that. I thought Chap was better than that, but obviously I was wrong.

If words can mean anything, they end up meaning nothing. Why even go down that road? You have to draw the line somewhere.

The meaning of words changes over time. What "gay" meant to me as a child isn't what "gay" means today, and that's only over 50 years.

Personally, I think we're mixing the esoteric with the literal. When I say "Jesus is the light of the world", I'm not talking photons and physics. I'm talking spiritual light. And I think anyone who tries to combine the spiritual with physics needs some lessons in something other than physics.

[Guest]

I was teaching people about photons before you were born.

Foul. This was not necessary nor does it add to the discussion. Jonas is making points; you may not like her points, but she's making them. It does you no credit to try to put a thumb on her. It just makes you look like you've just realized you aren't making your points clearly enough.

Might does not make right. Your attempt to belittle her does you no credit. That you would use this tactic puts you in the same box as DCP. Are you sure you want to use his tactics on someone who isn't using the same tactics on you?

Really? This poster has in the past informed us that she is studying for a degree in physics at a university. She asks me if I know what a photon is when I object to her silly suggestion that photons are Jesus (or was it the other way round?). I think that is an attempted put-down by her, to which I responded in a restrained manner. And where is the 'might' here? All I have is a key-board, just like her. She is presumably quite intelligent enough to manage without protection from you.

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

Perhaps she isn't expressing herself as well as she could, but you have no business dismissing her.

Actually my objection is not that she is failing to express herself clearly, but that she is not making an attempt to discuss the issue seriously, and instead is simply posting confused nonsense.

Doing a "what a sweet little airhead I am" act is not an excuse for being uncritical and unreflective. This is, after all, someone who has apparently been judged intelligent and educated enough to be admitted to a university to study a notoriously demanding subject - could we please see some signs of this intelligence being applied to something more serious?

[edited to remove information that might be a possible personal identifier]

[_Angus McAwesome]

Color is not a meaningless concept to anyone who is prepared to engage in discussion at a level higher than word games.

Are you trying to bring out the Ad Hom in me?

No, he's saying you're playing meaningless word games.

So teach me what a Photon is then.

Google it, n00b.

And when was I born?

I'm gonna guess sometime between 1988 and 1990. You seem like like late teen college freshman stuck in the "weee! Look at me, I'm in college and are smartest!" phase of higher learning.

boring semantics games tl;dr

And that's what Chap and myself were talking about. You wanting to play meaningless word games in a rather pathetic attempt to seem intelligent on par with Drippy's word-a-day-calander nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously then be serious.

Perhaps she isn't expressing herself as well as she could, but you have no business dismissing her.

I might have been inclined to believe that was the case if it wasn't for JonasS making several posts that basically amount to nothing more then "well, words can mean anything".

[_Some Schmo]

But then you weren't the one being told to sit down and shut up, which is essentially what he meant when he said he'd been teaching about photons since before she was born. "Sit down and shut up. I'm older than you, I know more than you, and you're a little pipsqueak."

Perhaps had he told you he'd been teaching about something since before you were born, in an obvious attempt to get you to sit down and shut up, you'd see it a bit differently.

That's what Daniel does, when he pulls out the "I know so-and-so" and "PhD" this and that. I thought Chap was better than that, but obviously I was wrong.

Well, my guess is that the reason you were potentially wrong is that it's not something Chap does as much as DCP does it. It's DCP's MO to do that to compensate for his lack of common sense and substance, whereas I interpreted Chap's use of it as an expression of frustration given the responses he was getting in this one instance. I could be wrong about that, of course, but I haven't known Chap to play the "I'm older/smarter" card before either.

If words can mean anything, they end up meaning nothing. Why even go down that road? You have to draw the line somewhere.

The meaning of words changes over time. What "gay" meant to me as a child isn't what "gay" means today, and that's only over 50 years.

Understood, but I don't think that was the road she was going down. You're speaking metaphorically in a specific sense as opposed to Jonas essentially claiming that words mean anything and everything.