Exactly.
I did say none of that mattered to me. I never requested if you are smiling or not, it doesn't apply anything to my mood like you suggest it does narcissist.
If anything though. I don't think you are smiling. Too much filth is resonating off of you for that to be the case. Okay Ed, you can have you final say now, I'm exchanging you for FatherLucifer now. Next time, come to me when you are better developed mentally.
by FatherLucifer
You do get off on being a jackass. That's your crack. Sad thing about it is that you don't think you could do anything other than get negative attention. You crave it. You demand it, because it's the only thing you've known in your real life. This level of Narcissism stems from strong insecurities. That's how most narcs are made. They down deep believe they are worthless pieces of shit and you are the king of shit.
Hm. So while you've been nothing but unkind in these pages, my response to you makes me some narcissistic asshole, and also how I deal with you is deep routed ? Okay fine. But still it's obvious, your a fan boy playing in psycholand, and now your trying to help some crazy person identify himself, classic.
by FatherLuciferI knew a Narc like him in real life. Anytime he was wounded he would go negative and keep it up until people started ignoring him. Then he would slowly return to his normal. I recommend /ignore.
Behold the power of Father Lucifer the great manipulator. As I call him out for being a fan, he recommends I be ignored.
by EdvardAlso, you don't really believe in God Tony. Not if you need quantum shit for that.
Quantum physics is one of few things I can talk about when the so called burden of proof is placed on me. Quantum physics will be the meeting ground for science and spirituality when the human and human brain are properly developed.
You keep bringing the Bible into discussion, but the Bible is all about "have faith" and not about "research quantum physics and I'll be so obvious to you you won't be needing any faith"
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.
You thought I was done eh ?
by Inquirerby Spatial MindThe inanimate object they are referring to there are the tools they use to measure the events. When they ( the computer with it's instrumentation is set. As written in your quote "the inanimate apperatus". Machine)
The events and outcomes from the experiments already beging to collapse in advance. And why ? Because there are observers behind the tool. Only a mind can collapse the wave function.
There are several different theories on the subject and we really don't have any way to prove or disprove any of them at the moment. It's a very interesting topic in terms of philosophy (which I told you on the old forum), but you can't use this as a proof of intelligent design.
We're talking about collapsing the wave function there. When we measure, the outcome is different, when we do not measure, the outcome is different yet again. For some, that's proof enough that something on a conscious level is at play. Wouldn't you agree ?
You're cutting things short again and placing conclusions on the unfinshed. This time you broke the response and focused on 1 thing, thus removing the picture.
I said "intuition derived from the details". For instance, my intuition leads me to believe you wouldn't want to look foolish, so you care to continue this. It's important for your end of the debate, that I say this is all based on faith. But I told you, I'm convinced. You never looked into or saw or experienced the things I have. It's not a matter of you seeking out what I see, but rather you are at a stand still or YOUR faith in science.
No inquirer, I assure you again. I am convinced. I do not give merit to sheeple, to me that is not cool, I had to seek out answers and I managed to find some. The Inanimate does not have consciousness, this is common sense. Even the laws of probability with numbers higher than we can speak of is more along the lines of "probably not".
No, I don't think I am cutting things short. And please, stop attacking my ego. Why do you obsess over that so much?
What you are describing is, to me, a faith simply because you try to support it with your own opinions, non-scientific conclusions that can't be proved, the Bible, people's near-death recollections etc. It's interesting, but it's something you believe but can't prove.
Well I told you from the start it's something I can't prove to just anyone. In order to see the picture, one must collect the information, set it down on the table without doubt, and assemble all the pieces to see the big picture. Now there you are saying for the 100th time "You can't prove it". Only one who is seeking the answer will see. You're mind is already settled and reliant on some other source to hand feed you information which is not so easily done in this subject. You say the burden of proof is on me. If that's the case, it would indeed be a burden.
An infant needs to be taken care of. We were all infants, without parents we will die. At one point in evolution did some creature from the swamp live long enough to mutate, find a mate that also mutated, mate, give birth and play family ?
Yes, basically. A mutation is either beneficial or not; that's evolution. I don't see the problem.
At what point did a creature who rose from the swamp start to mate and give birth, then raise offspring ? Cause before that, these creatures were not giving birth, nor would they have ever been an infant. For mamals in particular, the young will not make it without care.
Up to this day no one is telling us what came first between the egg and the bird. No one.
The egg and the bird grew slowly apart. Evolution took the simple act of a cell splitting off from another cell and added to it a little each time.
It is a scientific delema, where some argue a mutation must have taken place from some creature simular to the bird. It's still a laughable thing.
If cell splitting happened little by little, then how would the creature progress without giving birth ? Were there creatures that mutated and lived for 250,000 years ?