And Einstein, who was not even the inventor of general relativity, and being a Askenazim Jehudi, was a deist. Not a theist. To start an argument with Einstein, being a fraud and perpetuating a fraud, is not helpful.
E=mc² does make predictions, which relate to what happens to a star falling into a blackhole, creating a singularity. Clearly, her Chupa Chup has not been able to give understanding of what a singularity actually is.
And E=mc² is not the end of the physics class or Astronomy class.
The way she is using this argument is pointing to irreducible complexity and therefor it MUST be ..... which is another logical fallacy she employed.
This idea of irreducible complexity has already legally been shown to be unscientific. See Dover schoolboard 2004 court case.
The cause and effect argument, at least the way she uses it, is another logical fallacy concerning the prime mover.
However, if people wish to think like this, that is ok. I just hope to never ever have to be subject to superimposed views just because people have a problem with the uncertainty principle.
Because, all in all, all these arguments blend into one argument: I know what God is and let me tell you.....
Perhaps it is because He reveals Himself to those who seek Him...and once have been the recipient of this divine revelation, it is counted as pure joy to share.
Something bigger than anything we can understand, with the tools we possess exists. Something far far beyond all the intellectual/scientific psychobabble non adherents like to throw at us. Some want to explore that mystery - some don't. Those who do like to explore it also like to congregate in discussion forums to discuss their findings/views. Who do you think God is?
What I do know is what my own experience is. Some people would call it God. I do not. Some things, in their grandness, should not be named at all.
Naming it, is assigning frequency to it. And frequency creates reality, which frequency is always lower through the naming, as you cannot frequent on a higher level than you are now. (the use of are is intentional, as it is not a place)
So, when it comes to experience, I'd rather have the experience than talk about it. And use that experience to grow.
When it comes to logical deduction on matters, we would do well to understand that our language does not deal with fact and truth, but with fiction. Our language is a description of experience, not the experience itself. A bit akin to the platonic cave and the shadows on the wall.
This is the thrust in our society at large, as we are presented with one solution after another, that drags us deeper into artificiality.
e.g. You are watching a movie. The covid vaccine is the gateway vaccine to be part of the Internet of Bodies (IoB) in addition to the internet of Things, which actually encompasses bodies.
What St. Paul, in my view at least, describes when he describes his ascension to the 7th heaven, and when he writes that we do not walk through seeing, but through faith, or through spirit is exactly the issue. It is his experience, that drives his manifestation. Compare the writings of other Apostles and you will see a glaring difference: the need for validation.
When I comb through the New Testament, I find many good things in there, that pertain to spirituality, albeit within a context of a lot of noise.
e.g.: When Paul writes about the fruit of the spirit, he mixes the soul state with behavior: Love, peace and joy are the soul state. The other things mentioned as kindness, long suffering, patience, etc are behaviors.
He inserts things pertaining to manifestation, thereby garbling the actual message, setting a bar, instead of focusing on the soul state and allowing each one to come to their own (re)cognition of how to manifest it.
It would have been a divine miracle had he written after the first three, a question to ponder.
You have no knowledge regarding her lollipop....you know nothing of it at except it is red. You see dimly on the matter. Now, if you pursue knowledge and gain it, then come back and speak of high fructose corn syrup suckers. Do you treat your spiritual journey with the same level of flippancy?
I see what you did there with the possible 'balls out physics' reference. Did you watch the video?
yep, she never seen a bubble.
And Einstein, who was not even the inventor of general relativity, and being a Askenazim Jehudi, was a deist. Not a theist. To start an argument with Einstein, being a fraud and perpetuating a fraud, is not helpful.
E=mc² does make predictions, which relate to what happens to a star falling into a blackhole, creating a singularity. Clearly, her Chupa Chup has not been able to give understanding of what a singularity actually is.
And E=mc² is not the end of the physics class or Astronomy class.
The way she is using this argument is pointing to irreducible complexity and therefor it MUST be ..... which is another logical fallacy she employed.
This idea of irreducible complexity has already legally been shown to be unscientific. See Dover schoolboard 2004 court case.
The cause and effect argument, at least the way she uses it, is another logical fallacy concerning the prime mover.
However, if people wish to think like this, that is ok. I just hope to never ever have to be subject to superimposed views just because people have a problem with the uncertainty principle.
Because, all in all, all these arguments blend into one argument: I know what God is and let me tell you.....
Perhaps it is because He reveals Himself to those who seek Him...and once have been the recipient of this divine revelation, it is counted as pure joy to share.
Something bigger than anything we can understand, with the tools we possess exists. Something far far beyond all the intellectual/scientific psychobabble non adherents like to throw at us. Some want to explore that mystery - some don't. Those who do like to explore it also like to congregate in discussion forums to discuss their findings/views. Who do you think God is?
Yes.
Yes times 3.
I do not pretend to know or even know.
What I do know is what my own experience is. Some people would call it God. I do not. Some things, in their grandness, should not be named at all.
Naming it, is assigning frequency to it. And frequency creates reality, which frequency is always lower through the naming, as you cannot frequent on a higher level than you are now. (the use of are is intentional, as it is not a place)
So, when it comes to experience, I'd rather have the experience than talk about it. And use that experience to grow.
When it comes to logical deduction on matters, we would do well to understand that our language does not deal with fact and truth, but with fiction. Our language is a description of experience, not the experience itself. A bit akin to the platonic cave and the shadows on the wall.
This is the thrust in our society at large, as we are presented with one solution after another, that drags us deeper into artificiality.
e.g. You are watching a movie. The covid vaccine is the gateway vaccine to be part of the Internet of Bodies (IoB) in addition to the internet of Things, which actually encompasses bodies.
What St. Paul, in my view at least, describes when he describes his ascension to the 7th heaven, and when he writes that we do not walk through seeing, but through faith, or through spirit is exactly the issue. It is his experience, that drives his manifestation. Compare the writings of other Apostles and you will see a glaring difference: the need for validation.
When I comb through the New Testament, I find many good things in there, that pertain to spirituality, albeit within a context of a lot of noise.
e.g.: When Paul writes about the fruit of the spirit, he mixes the soul state with behavior: Love, peace and joy are the soul state. The other things mentioned as kindness, long suffering, patience, etc are behaviors.
He inserts things pertaining to manifestation, thereby garbling the actual message, setting a bar, instead of focusing on the soul state and allowing each one to come to their own (re)cognition of how to manifest it.
It would have been a divine miracle had he written after the first three, a question to ponder.
You have no knowledge regarding her lollipop....you know nothing of it at except it is red. You see dimly on the matter. Now, if you pursue knowledge and gain it, then come back and speak of high fructose corn syrup suckers. Do you treat your spiritual journey with the same level of flippancy?
I see what you did there with the possible 'balls out physics' reference. Did you watch the video?
I support neither theory. #Scientism