Trying To Think Realistically About Life..., Do nonphysical entities exist

Here is a model:
01234567890
Everyone has a different worldview - how we see the world because we are all different.
Some people think only the physical exists, others think that moroni exists and wear "magic" underwear, as an example. Scientists often consider themselves to be looking for truth. If your viewpoint can't accurately describe the world around us -- wouldn't you want to find one that does?

This post has been edited by TracerTong on Oct 31 2009, 05:17 PM

Define "physical" before you move on.

And scientists are looking for an accurate model.
Theists aren't.

If you really want me to:
"...
1. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily."
(Reference: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...entry/physical)
You don't like the concepts of intelligence (possibly because Cosmic entity can mean God) and the Natural Man believes the spiritual does not exist. It scares me to face the truth, I pity us both. I don't know what your going through in life. I wish you the best.

This post has been edited by TracerTong on Oct 31 2009, 09:54 PM

I think the old man, Paul Johnson would disagree with that assessment.

I, however, have not been able to open up this link:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/co...aningless.thtml

What I don't like are wishywashy definitions that are made to suit the argument the person is making.

What about light and electricity are they "physical"?

And you keep getting details wrong. It's not that the spiritual does not exist, it's that there is no evidence of it.

And what are you trying to demonstrate with the poll?
So what if there is time?

This post has been edited by buttershug on Oct 31 2009, 10:44 PM

I got it open.
What's your point?
That there are people with columns that don't understand science, or what a "theory" is?

Creation is just a story.

The American Spectator of the same year was able to use American scientists to redirect the otherwise boffin answer.

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/08/05/t...e-that-couldun/

To be stubbornly ignorant, unlike their predecessor Isaac Newton, of the Bible is a working shame and a downfall of a nation if not a great empire.


MrB.

This post has been edited by MisterBelfry on Oct 31 2009, 11:25 PM

According to the physics booklet Motion Mountain it talks about time not existing (I'm guessing they mean, physically.) For biology the circadian cycle is neat, cause you can hopefully find was to avoid/ cope with jet lag and control one's sleep cycle. I looked at one of the first definitions for physical I googled. How's your biology teaching going - maybe you were kidding? --I liked the "Sun causes evolution" mockery. you had me. Time, truth existing seperately from the physical? Where do cells (or I don't know/forget what) get the specific info to replicate DNA? --they know how to interact. -- You do not want to face the truth.... I can't do anything else... pray

This post has been edited by TracerTong on Nov 1 2009, 12:20 AM

Where is this thread heading? I haven't voted as the meaning has not been clarified yet.

Who says that scientists are ignorant of that particular work of fiction?
Ringworld is a more interesting work of fiction though.

Yeah, maybe... I don't read fiction. I read the Bible. The most fiction I read is the stuff of liberal idiots on this forum.

MrB.

I should note that I mention Isaac Newton and his work on prophecy as an act of non-fiction. And for which we share something in common. Relativity wise, I re-put, if I may, the Earth at the centre of the Universe. And there maybe more parts of the Bible that I take more literally than Sir Isaac ever did. It is a shame we don't know more on what he spent most of his career{or certainly his spare time, alchemy included} on. He owned more Bibles than I ever will, probably... which is saying something... although on the translated version count, I suspect not.

Is there any other ontic possibility that could intelligibly be added here?

But how do you know the Bible is does not contain mostly fiction?
The most common method is circular logic.

But other than that how do you know?

By holding it up to the evidence. Was Isaac (Isreal) God's chosen people or ishmael? The field is called apologetics (Edit: Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. ) If truth is knowable, then it should follow that there would be ample evidence of truth in and around our universe -- such as a physical laws, desire to be loved. What circular logic are you referring to? If we can't know anything - don't we know then that can't know anything?

This post has been edited by TracerTong on Nov 2 2009, 05:00 PM

If truth is knowable, then it should be available to all regardless of (or in spite of) culturally selected divine revelation. In fact, if "god" wrote it into the laws of nature, then divine revelation is pointless.