Man is as intelligent as God

[Guest]

Tobin.

Why is it that some come to a discussion of the unseen spirit and bring along the science method of dealing with the physical universe. Can't they get it through their collective pea brains that the physical universe can not be used to prove anything of a spiritual nature. Then they have the nerve to act all high and mighty like they really told us off. All the while they appear to me as yappy little dogs that do nothing but irritate you.

[_DrW]

DrW,

Again, just more incoherent rambling from you. Here are two references on the possibilities I outlined to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

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

In particular, you should pay attention to this:

Certain scientists, futurists, and philosophers, have theorized about the immortality of the material human body, and advocate that human immortality is achievable in the first few decades of the 21st century, while other advocates believe that life extension is a more achievable goal in the short term, with immortality awaiting further research breakthroughs into an indefinite future. Aubrey de Grey, a researcher who has developed a series of biomedical rejuvenation strategies to reverse human aging (called SENS), believes that his proposed plan for ending aging may be implementable in two or three decades.[5] The absence of aging would provide humans with biological immortality, but not invulnerability to death by physical trauma.

And your post below is a perfect example of what I've noted about you. You have a very limited mind and lack reading comprehension skills(probably from doing little reading on your own). You just are ignorant of a great deal of what may be possible and that is why you discount it as magic (again, due to your limitations).

Tobin,

Your use of a wiki article on M-Theory as a reference for the collision of another universe with this one as the cause of the Big Bang (you said it, not me) is but one example of your ignorance of science. M-Theory postulates no such thing. If you are instead referring to the postulated contact between D-branes as the event leading to the signlarity, then it is you who needs to do some more reading.

When you can come back with some demonstration that you have the vaguest idea what M-Theory is and how it may be related to the singularity from which the universe evolved, we can discuss further help for you.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

Your use of a wiki article on M-Theory as a reference for the collision of another universe with this one as the cause of the Big Bang (you said it, not me) is but one example of your ignorance of science. M-Theory postulates no such thing. If you are instead referring to the postulated contact between D-branes as the event leading to the signlarity, then it is you who needs to do some more reading.

When you can come back with some demonstration that you have the vaguest idea what M-Theory is and how it may be related to the singularity from which the universe evolved, we can discuss further help for you.

Well, there we have it. Until I provided the link, DrW was ignoranant of M-Theory and its implications. As he stated in this thread, this is magic and something I made up. Note that when I provided the links to the material clearly showing that is not the case, he then makes the ridiculous claim to have the only true understanding of it. DrW, you are really looking silly now. Not only have I demonstrated that you repeatedly makes the silly claims (due to your ignorance), but also it seems you believe you are perfect and know EVERYTHING. If I point out how lacking your knowledge is, your fall back is to misrepresent the material and pretend to have known about it all along (and have the definitive view). Thank you, DrW, for proving EXACTLY what I've noted about you is absolutely accurate and true.

Also, if you would like, please refer to the following link:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok?currentPage=all

I'm sure you will fail to comprehend that material too. You know what you should do? You should write Neil Turok and tell him that is something that is only magic and that I made it up as you asserted in this thread. I'm sure he'll be as fascinated as I am by your depth of knowledge and understanding of current scientific theories.

[_DrW]

Tobin,

Your use of a wiki article on M-Theory as a reference for the collision of another universe with this one as the cause of the Big Bang (you said it, not me) is but one example of your ignorance of science. M-Theory postulates no such thing. If you are instead referring to the postulated contact between D-branes as the event leading to the signlarity, then it is you who needs to do some more reading.

When you can come back with some demonstration that you have the vaguest idea what M-Theory is and how it may be related to the singularity from which the universe evolved, we can discuss further help for you.

Well, there we have it. Until I provided the link, DrW was ignoranant of M-Theory and its implications. As he stated in this thread, this is magic and something I made up. Note that when I provided the links to the material clearly showing that is not the case, he then makes the ridiculous claim to have the only true understanding of it. DrW, you are really looking silly now. Not only have I demonstrated that you repeatedly makes the silly claims (due to your ignorance), but also it seems you believe you are perfect and know EVERYTHING. If I point out how lacking your knowledge is, your fall back is to misrepresent the material and pretend to have known about it all along (and have the definitive view). Thank you, DrW, for proving EXACTLY what I've noted about you is absolutely accurate and true.

Also, if you would like, please refer to the following link:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok?currentPage=all

I'm sure you will fail to comprehend that material too. You know what you should do? You should write Neil Turok and tell him that is something that is only magic and that I made it up as you asserted in this thread. I'm sure he'll be as fascinated as I am by your depth of knowledge and understanding of current scientific theories.

Tobin,

You have demonstrated, yet again, your habit of making statements without having a clue what you are talking about. Below are links to four previous threads on this board wherein I talk about M-Theory and its possible implications to cosmology.

If you had bothered to simply check your statement regarding my familiarity with M-Theory by using the board Search utility, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of being demonstrably wrong, yet again.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22955&p=564989&hilit=branes#p564989

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27354&p=664518&hilit=branes#p664518

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20808&p=510791&hilit=branes#p510791

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22189&hilit=branes

Sorry, Tobin, but as this latest example demonstrates, you have a serious problem with facts.

Now, as I stated earlier, if you want to continue this discussion, you will need to come back with an explanation of the Big Bang singularity that does not include your silly idea that it involves the collision of this universe with another one.

(Hint: This theoretical process is explained in one of the threads cited above wherein I talk about the M-Theory that you claim I knew nothing about before you demonstrated your gross misunderstanding of it on this thread.)

[_Tobin]

Well, there we have it. Until I provided the link, DrW was ignoranant of M-Theory and its implications. As he stated in this thread, this is magic and something I made up. Note that when I provided the links to the material clearly showing that is not the case, he then makes the ridiculous claim to have the only true understanding of it. DrW, you are really looking silly now. Not only have I demonstrated that you repeatedly makes the silly claims (due to your ignorance), but also it seems you believe you are perfect and know EVERYTHING. If I point out how lacking your knowledge is, your fall back is to misrepresent the material and pretend to have known about it all along (and have the definitive view). Thank you, DrW, for proving EXACTLY what I've noted about you is absolutely accurate and true.

Also, if you would like, please refer to the following link:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok?currentPage=all

I'm sure you will fail to comprehend that material too. You know what you should do? You should write Neil Turok and tell him that is something that is only magic and that I made it up as you asserted in this thread. I'm sure he'll be as fascinated as I am by your depth of knowledge and understanding of current scientific theories.

Tobin,

You have demonstrated, yet again, your habit of making statements without having a clue what you are talking about. Below are links to four previous threads on this board wherein I talk about M-Theory and its possible implications to cosmology.

If you had bothered to simply check your statement regarding my familiarity with M-Theory by using the board Search utility, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of being demonstrably wrong, yet again.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22955&p=564989&hilit=branes#p564989

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27354&p=664518&hilit=branes#p664518

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20808&p=510791&hilit=branes#p510791

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22189&hilit=branes

Sorry, Tobin, but as this latest example demonstrates, you have a serious problem with facts.

Now, as I stated earlier, if you want to continue this discussion, you will need to come back with an explanation of the Big Bang singularity that does not include your silly idea that it involves the collision of this universe with another one.

(Hint: This theoretical process is explained in one of the threads cited above wherein I talk about the M-Theory that you claim I knew nothing about before you demonstrated your gross misunderstanding of it on this thread.)

Fascinating. It seems you were familiar with the concept after all. The only conclusion that I can make is that you were lying and wishing to deceive people.

After all, it was your contention I was wrong, made this whole concept up, and it was magic. Given that you were supposedly already aware of the concept, you were instead maliciously and deceitfully representing it was untrue. An honest person would have agreed with my contention and refined and corrected what I said. For example, an honest person would have clearly stated that the theory is branes interact and that results in the Big Bang. However, that is NOT what you did. Instead, I believe you were being completely dishonest in your representations. YOU represented that no such concept existed in science and only when I provided links did you admit that such a concept did in fact exist. As a result of your attempts to deceive everyone here I'm putting you on ignore. I do not believe people that resort to lying and misrepresentations are worth speaking with.

[_Franktalk]

Tobin,

I have found many of the science types use a selective set of science to make a point. They hope you do not know about other areas of science that contradicts what they have presented. Science is a whole set of data and many anomalies exist and many competing theories exist. It is the height of dishonesty to project oneself as knowledgeable in science and purposefully form an argument from a large data set hoping that the person you are arguing with does not know the other areas of science.

Sadly it is a common practice and demonstrates the mind set of these people. A practice of personal glory and not a quest for truth.

Clearly the intelligences described in the OP (implied) if eternal existed before the universe so they are not part of the physical universe. Why would anyone try and use the tools of the physical universe to examine something beyond its boundary. The only reason is to deny their existence. This is fine if that is your goal and you state that as your goal. But to use science as a cleaver to oppose spirituality or things spiritual just exposes the vacuous nature of some people. I respect science, scientist not so much.

Isn't it funny that someone would come into an argument and fight over the use of one term or another in science using some exact standard. But in the same breath reject all of the terminology of things religious or spiritual.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

I have found many of the science types use a selective set of science to make a point. They hope you do not know about other areas of science that contradicts what they have presented. Science is a whole set of data and many anomalies exist and many competing theories exist. It is the height of dishonesty to project oneself as knowledgeable in science and purposefully form an argument from a large data set hoping that the person you are arguing with does not know the other areas of science.

Sadly it is a common practice and demonstrates the mind set of these people. A practice of personal glory and not a quest for truth.

Clearly the intelligences described in the OP (implied) if eternal existed before the universe so they are not part of the physical universe. Why would anyone try and use the tools of the physical universe to examine something beyond its boundary. The only reason is to deny their existence. This is fine if that is your goal and you state that as your goal. But to use science as a cleaver to oppose spirituality or things spiritual just exposes the vacuous nature of some people. I respect science, scientist not so much.

Isn't it funny that someone would come into an argument and fight over the use of one term or another in science using some exact standard. But in the same breath reject all of the terminology of things religious or spiritual.

I am beginning to view this matter the same way you do. In the end, it didn't matter whether or not I brought up the science with DrW. It seems it was always his intention to handle the material in a deceitful (and as you would describe it - non-spiritual) way. Instead of openly and honestly discussing how Joseph Smith could be correct, he instead resorted to misrepresentations. His initial response was to deny everything, state I made it up, and that it was magic. It now appears he knew better and had no real interest in this topic or honestly discussing any topic. I don't have much use for people that behave like that and I will never speak with him again now I understand his real character and intentions.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, you gotta hand it to him. Tobin is one of the more eclectic trolls this board has seen...

- Doc

[_DrW]

Well, you gotta hand it to him. Tobin is one of the more eclectic trolls this board has seen...

- Doc

Yup. After becoming hopelessly entangled in his own BS, yet again, looks like our friend has decided to quit the field. And none too soon. I was beginning to feel embarrassed for him, and I am not known for being empathetic.

[Guest]

Clearly the intelligences described in the OP (implied) if eternal existed before the universe so they are not part of the physical universe. Why would anyone try and use the tools of the physical universe to examine something beyond its boundary. The only reason is to deny their existence?

That's a fantastic question, but easily answered with common sense. I will answer this question in just a minute, but let's get some of your other observations on the table:

DrW,

Maybe instead of trying to twist terms used in spiritual talks you would be so kind as to actually use the terms in the manner that those who accept this expanded reality use them. Since you reject all things spiritual how can you judge or attempt to redefine terms in any meaningful way. To anyone with a spiritual bone you appear as a crazy man waving his arms around. It is so sad. But I am sure you feel superior in your own eyes. Rest assured in my eyes I would use different terms to describe you.

The problem here, Franktalk, is that there were no divisions between science and religion for early Mormons, and there really isn't a division today for most Mormons. Mormonism isn't just a "religion", it's a TOE -- a theory of everything. Joseph Smith never stopped opening his mouth, he was able to explain everything about everything, reconciling science and religion, but favoring the language of science over the language of "spirituality". Joseph Smith and his gang took delight in the lack of scholarly sophistication they saw in Christianity, the inability of Christianity to be explained in terms of science. Joseph Smith and the gang were doing the exact opposite of what you are claiming here, and they were rather explicit and extreme about this.

To answer your earlier question, "clearly," the intelligences that are eternal are very much a part of the open universe that Joseph Smith and his bros believed in. You do realize that the big bang theory originated after Joseph Smith, right? Let's look at what Mormonism believes about your "spritual things outside the scope of science"

http://books.google.com/books?id=un9559 ... &q&f=false

There are still some students who prefer to believe in the existence of a special vital force which is not subject to the laws that govern other forces This view however is so inconsistent with the modern understanding of the contents of the universe that it has few followers

Read the full text to capture the patient disdain Widstoe has for those who run for the corners of the universe to hide the unexplained.

As observed in chapters two and three, Joseph Smith taught that the energy of matter or of ether is a form of intelligence. If according taught the to this doctrine matter and ether are universality of life intelligent then life also must reside in all matter and ether. eHnce everything in the universe is alive. Further since all force is motion universal motion is universal life. The difference between rock plant beast and man is in the amount and organization of its life or intelligence For instance in harmony with this doctrine the earth...


....and is used as in Genesis. Man, according to this is composed of matter; the spirit which may be likened to ether, and energy. The organization of man at the begininng of our earth history was only the clothing of the eternal spiritual man with the matter which constitutes the perishable body In confirmation of this view note another statement For man is spirit The elements are eternal and spirit and element inseparably connected receiveth a fullness of joy and when separated man can not receive a fullness of joy f Here also it is taught that man is composed of matter spirit and energy.

The great mystery of "intelligence" is revealed, it's nothing other than plain old energy. Reading Widstoe is a joy compared to reading Jr. apologists with science interests, however. Widstoe was an educated man, and though he was obviously up in the night, he explained his case so clearly that there is very little room for misunderstanding.

One may disagree with Widstoe, but Widstoe's authority on what Mormon terms mean overshadows Franktalks opinions by more than a little. And if Franktalk doesn't agree with Widstoe, perhaps that can be permitted, but, he'd have to argue that Widstoe, and probably even Joseph Smith himself, are the ones guilty of redefining terms in the Bible so that they can be understood in the context of "science," not Dr. W. Dr. W is just commenting on what Mormonism itself has established. Many apologists wish to go the route of making science and religion two categories of knowledge or even reality, in order to save their beliefs from the microscope, but they'd do better to pick another religion in that case.

Edited out reference to Tobin per his correction that he's making a different argument than Franktalk, whom I'm quoting here.