I'm not a believer in your theories, no.Again, bottom line, your not a believer.
As a Christian, when I read this, my first thought is: "Then not my God."A RENOWNED theoretical physicist claims to have proof of God through theoretical particles.
As a Christian, when I read this, I think: "Oh dear, Intelligent Design is rearing its head again."... a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.
The scriptures are, your suppositions, sadly, are not. We can discuss in more detail if you so choose.Thomas, I presented the various scriptures from the Bible, and they are valid.
No, I've said they're not original. Nor are they all 'true' in the sense of a presentation of Christian revelation, insight and inspiration. There's quite a profound gnosticism in there, a quite fundamental dualism, which you seem encompassed by.All you're saying to me is you haven't considered the Wachowski's illustration as true...
Sadly, I think the one thing lacking most noticeable from your presentations is objectivity.and you hadn't stepped back from our situation to objectively considered what is truth.
Both from scripture, or from science.
Contemplate the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, that One is Three and Three is One, and then talk to me of 'Our Mathematical Universe'."Our Mathematical Universe"
No. Your repetitive memes are untruthful about what scientists and scriptures say: a half-truth is a whole lie. This isn't Facebook and why should we allow our website to be used as a platform to spread misinformation on the internet?You're the people who chose to host the "Religion of the Matrix" thread. Here.
Which? You've stated now is," untruthful".
This is neither a discussion, nor a cogent answer (and if I want to know what Penrose thinks, I go to Penrose.)With respect to, "Time"...
Yes we did, for dialogue and discussion. You offer neither ... in that sense you are an 'empty vessel'.You're the people who chose to host the "Religion of the Matrix" thread. Here.
No, I think we've raised a number of points – it's unoriginal, 'matrixism' is an example of the very thing that the movie, and the Wachowski sisters, are warning against. I refer you once again to Jean Baudrillard, the big clue that you and matricists seem to have missed.Which? You've stated now is, "untruthful".
So patently nonsense.I've explained why it is not... and you've penalized me for doing so.
Well expressed, imo. I apologise for sometimes sounding abrasive.This is neither a discussion, nor a cogent answer (and if I want to know what Penrose thinks, I go to Penrose.)
Yes we did, for dialogue and discussion. You offer neither ... in that sense you are an 'empty vessel'.
No, I think we've raised a number of points – it's unoriginal, 'matrixism' is an example of the very thing that the movie, and the Wachowski sisters, are warning against. I refer you once again to Jean Baudrillard, the big clue that you and matricists seem to have missed.
So patently nonsense.
1: Your explanations have been shown to be subjective, if not actually flawed. Here, as we continually tell you, we discuss. We are under no obligation to heap praises on anyone who rocks up here.
There are other, recent members here, who have been questioned, who have answered and dialogued, and who have responded in good grace, and are now members of this community, even though some, or perhaps all of us, do not hold with their viewpoint and beliefs. So don't try to play the victim card, it won't work.
You're being penalised for continually breaking the very few and flexible rules of this place, for showing us with chaff.
Personally I think you've abusing the tolerance of IO and you've been abusive towards those who dare to question you.
Your own actions have brought you to this pass.
The next step is up to you.
You can dialogue, or not. You can go forward from here with a clean sheet – we've all asked for a clean sheet at some point and I've never seen anyone refused – we do not hold grudges, we'd rather make friends than lose them.
It's not so much we've asked you to go, it's rather that you've opted to reject and rebuff our welcome.
I'm not a believer in your theories, no.
I am a believer in Christ, in Scripture and a two-thousand year Tradition.
Despite all its faults, I am, for the most part, comfortable with that. Having said that, there are flaws and faults I am not comfortable with ... nevertheless ...
But on the point in question, nor is Professor Kaku 'a believer' as you suppose.
PBS Spacetime is a good channel, imoRJM, So looking at the video, I see similarities with Julian Barbour's examples and illustrations concering slices of now, and he also refers to the "flip book" example.
I would view my perception is one of eternalism, vs. say, wil's perception, regarding presentism.
The LP record illustration is a good example, I think. It is all there, past, present and future.
Which? Is indicative again, of a program.