Floyd, dear hopefully not so wound-up one this time,: : : ...I mean seriously, I could say "before Abraham was, I am" but doing so does not answer my questions about extra-dimensionality. Don't believe me? Try to get a doctorate in physics using this as an argument.
It would make an excellent thesis. Outline:
1) The greatest discovery of the 20th century was that the universe expands and that time / space started together back at a singularity.
2) Using cause and effect: Since there is a beginning (observed effect), there must be a Beginner (causal Agent).
3) Note that of all philosophies / belief systems / sciences / etc. there is one alone known to man that claims boldly the beginning and also trancendence beyond our dimesionality.
4) The Creator of this universe reveals Himself through His Word in the Bible. He also reveals His extra dimensionality in time, space, and relationships with us mortals.
5) Since it would be impossible for ancient man to understand a beginning to time /space, trancendence, and the lot, the Bible is either a heck-of-a coincidence, or truly revealed by the Author Himself.
: No, many things qualify as "evidence" to me, but they are exclusively material, physical things, not immaterial, "spiritual" or philosophical things.
Do you consider the recognition of extra-dimensionality, as non-evidence? After all we cannot see it in the material / physical. I think you unneccesarily constrain your thinking here.
: :Perhaps I'll leave you with Pearce's ISBNs for Evidence for Truth: Archeology, ISBN 0863472648, and Evidence for Truth: Science, ISBN 086347263x. Pearce is a an Oxford PhD, who spent his early years as an understudy to Melaart at Catal Huyuk. They are both good reads, whether you agree or not.
: I'm actually familiar with this work, and it is what we in the sciences call "nonsense." Sorry, pal, perhaps you'd be interested in reading some real archaeology?
Everyone has his own opinion. Some are more narrow than others.
: : This is perhaps true. On closer inspection, there seemed to be two groups of anarchists who attended the fest. One was the peaceful group who were gassed, beat, and arrested. The second group was in the background, wearing ski masks and causing all sorts of violence. They seemed to get off scott free.
: You're lumping all the "peaceful" protestors together as "anarchists," when in fact that is incorrect. The people who have been called "anarchists" by the statist media were in fact much as you describe, punk thugs who were just interested in smashing things. They were not anarchists in any real sense at all, since anarchism inherently opposes coercion, and violence is always coercive. Many of the non-violent protestors were not anarchists, in fact, most were not. All of the violent protestors were NOT anarchists, but revolutionary statists. There is a huge difference, which I've explained before and need not repeat.
: : This latter group reminds me of the brown-shirts of the 1930's who sped around the streets of Germany hurling bricks through windows and creating chaos. Their actions in Seattle were documented as being well coordinated and planned (International Herald, 3 December). So I can sympathise with your being around them, (hopefully you don't own a ski mask).
: I was not involved with those people. I do not trust those people. I do not now, nor will I ever, have anything to do with those people. I strongly suspect that they were agents provocatuers, but if not, they were transformed into such by the media labeling them "anarchists." Their behavior was inexcusable, and if they were'nt deliberately trying to make anarchism look bad, then they were used by the media to do so. Either way, as I mentioned, they were not anarchists.
It sounds like you are creating a conspiracy of sorts. The statist media is in connivance with the ski-mask guys? Tell me more.
: : : Most of the protestors opposed a lowering of real wages and labor standards and/or a softening of environmental protections. The protestors were not in any position to make global treaties, only the people inside the convention center could do that. The protestors were the "average blokes" that you accuse us of trying to oppress. Yes, I would like it if my children are able to earn a livable wage and drink clean water, and yes, I will work to make this the case. Yes, this may mean imposing restrictions or sanctions on capitalist multinational corporations, but the people who own these businesses are not "average blokes," Robert, they are oligarchs who are each doing a lot more to oppress the "average bloke" than all the protestors combined could ever manage.
: : So you don't want a global treaty or some legislation. I think you do.
: The fact that you think something does not make it true. I frankly don't care if you think I want a global state. I've tol;d you several times that this is not the case, and you just refuse to listen, so I will no longer try to convince you. There are lots of other brick walls out there for me to bang my head against. Think whatever you want.
: : OK, so you get your global treaty. Who will enforce it? A global police? A global cop? A global state? Remember the treaty is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not ENFORCABLE.
: Irrelevant blather, since, as I said, it's based on a false assumption.
That's funny, you've always supported global treaties in the the past why the sudden change in heart?
: : Ironically, the same kevlar-clad bloke who thumped you on the head and whom you villified a few weeks ago may, one day, be your hero
: Now you're back to calling me a nazi? I thought we were past that. Oh well, think what you want.
No, I simply point out the possible ironies of your actions.
: :when he hauls some poor fisherman to jail for accidently snagging a sea turtle. So enforcement comes with force. Treaties require enforcement. Global treaties require global enforcement. Is this conspriacy talk to you?
: No, it's irrelevant twaddle to me since, as I said, I do not support the creation of a global state. Your paranoia is showing.
Not KNOWINGLY (or outwardly admitting here) support for the creation of a global state, but your actions do support it none-the-less. That's why I think you have treasoned your cause by stridently participating in that debauchery. After all you've already admitted that you been used by the state-media ski-mask guys. Sounds like I'm a lot less paranoined than you. (And I thought we were beyond that bit as well)
: : What you are doing Floyd is, replacing the nation-state with the global-state. No freedom will be gain through that. Neither will your much vaunted individualism.
: Irrelevant twaddle and false assumptions again...ZZZzzzzzz...
: : Perhaps the greatest anarchy to the WTO would be strong nation-states. They wouldn't know how to break them down.
: That's just plain hilarious! The multinationals already control the powerful nation states. Why do you think McSpotlight exists? Why do you think the McLibel trial happened? Your understanding of global economics is rivaled only by your knowledge of modern science.
Target the multinationals (to include multi-national political organisations as well)then, not the nations. Nations can induce tariffs, laws, etc and make it a bit rough on the multi-national boys at that, can they not? International treaties and agreements break them down.
: So, why do you oppose communism? Since communism is "of this world," it strikes me that you wouldn't care if the commies took over, since you are not interested in this world. Also, why do you try to convince people of the validity of your beliefs? People are also "of this world," and only their supposed "souls" or "spirits" are important in your philosophy, so why bother? Surely their solus or spirits already "know the truth," so your attempts to convince people are simply blowing air around, aren't they?
: Fine, explain to me why, if there are no lists of "do's and don'ts," you oppose the things you oppose and support the things you support. I assume that you oppose communism because communism will, in your opinion, make the world a worse place. Since you've stated that you are not interested in this "fleshy kingdom," why do you care whether or not there is communism? If there is no reason to try to make the world a better place, then there is no justification for your opposition to alternative economic or political systems. It doesn't make a lot of sense, Robert, you have to admit.
Communism, capitalism, whatever-ism is no favourite with me so I think this is a red-herring argument. All of man's isms are doomed. Perhaps you could say that I'm a non-ism guy, rather than an anti-ism guy.
What isn't doomed is faith in Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the New Year's Greeting and Mutlu Yeni Yillar to you as well. God Bless.
Robert
None.
