Darth Kwisatz

I've imagined up to 9 of those dimensions since I was a kid. First impressions are best for me, but my first posts were the silliest, so figure that out. Theology debates are a bore because rarely can the protagonists engage on equal terms for the sake of argument. Theists take things far too personally, even though we must always condescend to assuming the presence of god in order for there to even be a debate. I've not met a theist who can happily imagine there being no god and engage merrily and logically on those terms, and without a palpable sense of fear of the possibility. No one drives me nuts at all. If anything, I'm curious to see if there is any reason to believe in this phenomenon other than the empty rhetoric of faith. If you want a ten-dimensional debate, just ask. I really do think, the more I explore what drives theists to their convictions, that it is a combination of fear and need. I've seen people convert between theism and atheism in either direction. What I get from that, and from knowing people is that to me, and as I observe in others, god really is the spiritual representation of a cure for individual terror of absurd futility. I'm with Nietzsche on that one. I don't drink beer nor belch except with people who do talk about inter-dimensional nonsense. Its a pity you're half-way around the world and not around the corner.

I agree that creation is a figment of the imagination.

The fantasy world is when people cite myths about "miracles" that supposedly did occur, and "did" interfere with the course of human history, as factual evidence.

Someone lectured me about extra dimensions, to which I replied, off the back of another thread here somewhere that at least 10 have been described in lay terms. Okay, I can see that this is going to be a flat earth-type argument characterised by automatic gainsaying justified by irrelevant analogies and limited on one side by the imgination of the theists. As Dante said, boring.

Pragmatic to the ends of the one meting out the "justice", of course. I'm inclined to agree with Edric on the nature of justice. But we'd probably disagree on measuring it!

Its a rehash of an argument that's be done to death here and I agree. Still, no concept is ultimately beyond science in a qualitative sense, even if it could be in the quantitative. People either agree or disagree, and best to leave it at that. The more interesting question that probably deserves a new thread concerns the nature of infinity and void in general - the meta-universe beyond the expanding boundaries of matter and energy discharged by the big bang and so on. Its entirely speculative, but to explore those ideas to the nth degree could further illuminate or extinguish the possibility of a supra-natural force.

In an infinite universe, it is impossible to be outside of it, and impossible to be within it except according to the laws of physics.

God is the most lucrative business on Earth.

I'm happy with god being a metaphor for energy, and even matter in a more wholistic and universal sense. I'm also happy with adverse causes and effects of inbalances consciously effected by humans being expressed in metaphors such as god's punishment or as a karmic events. Start a wave at one end of a bath and it will come back to you. Easy. The literal interpretations of omnipotent consciousness and concepts of holiness, however, are dangerous if treated as anything other than a corny joke.

And that is how the US surrendered all the international support, sympathy solidarity it won after 11/9.

Petty linguistic games about the characteristics of a species don't deny the capacity to make independent decisions about one's future. I don't see what's insulting about the concept of a base model of human without the genetic option of enhanced probable intellect available through selected pairing by suitable mates.

John Paul is just another pope, Billy Graham just another evangelist. They'll remember John Paul I and Jim and Tammy Bakker before any of the others.

Call it a side effect then. Same difference. No, hang on, I'll stick by your dictionary definition. "In addition to the principal product" is about right. You've just found me a definition of stupidity.

Welcome back. The faithful are bound by peer pressure, perceived obligations/desires/fears, or stereotypic behaviours. The "truly free" are the ones you see in the bars every night drinking to impress their belching buddies, having a "life". Thats just one example. The faithful are able to hide in the mundane everyday mold of mankind. Hence the reason why so few faithfuls leave such a lasting impression on people than anyone else, they are your everyday average joe chained to an imaginary promise.

I'm sure I saw an interview or press conference years ago when "W" said he had it in for Iraq because they wanted to kill his dad in the first US Gulf War.