tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post7552058246101883773..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Millennium: A Time (Obviously?) of RevelationJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79191613779932586202010-05-05T22:54:29.167-05:002010-05-05T22:54:29.167-05:00Well, this has been a loss. Last time I ever go mo...Well, this has been a loss. Last time I ever go more than 12 minutes without Internet access.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82210954704989357972010-05-05T22:53:17.866-05:002010-05-05T22:53:17.866-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30682454404171513522010-05-05T22:41:12.507-05:002010-05-05T22:41:12.507-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74241519192175117562010-05-05T22:27:10.667-05:002010-05-05T22:27:10.667-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24800168782045565262010-05-05T22:20:05.494-05:002010-05-05T22:20:05.494-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88772436579934017472010-05-05T22:04:53.847-05:002010-05-05T22:04:53.847-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4840996461290972512010-05-05T22:02:17.470-05:002010-05-05T22:02:17.470-05:00Mormanity said...
Flavius, appreciate the zea...Mormanity said...<br /><i><br /> Flavius, appreciate the zeal but let's keep things short and not take page with so many posts. </i><br /><br />Zeal? I posted a paper I wrote a few years back Jeff. It was an attempt to show this anonymous character that I was only interested in a logical discussion dealing with facts, etc. His response was simply to repeatedly say "nuh uh" and to repeatedly insult my intelligence without offering any actual data in response whatsoever. <br /><br />The reason the posts were so many was because your blog limits to 4096 characters per post and the paper itself was over 4000 words alone, so I had to break it up into smaller posts. I explained that, perhaps you overlooked that in your "zeal" to reprimand me. <br /><br />But no worries, I can tell this is not the erudite environment that I first deduced when I came in, I was looking for a place for a decent discussion with some smart, interesting people.<br /><br />I've found none of that here so coupled with your telling me to curtail my comments I'll go you one better. <br /><br />I'll find somewhere else to make them. Trolls like this anonymous fellow here who do nothing but try to tangle people into personal attacks, insults etc are a scourge to the spirit, and a drain on a persons intellect, reason and joy. And that's something I can find anywhere on the internet. So thanks, but no thanks. <br /><br />I'll be moving on.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55032199909471500892010-05-05T21:54:24.440-05:002010-05-05T21:54:24.440-05:00Anonymous, you're clearly just an internet tro...Anonymous, you're clearly just an internet troll, something I've had my fill of.<br /><br />First I assumed you were an atheist when you said this; <i>Anonymous said...<br /><br />That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic, says more about your mental state than anything else.</i><br /><br />That was the comment I was responding to so once more you're clearly lying, omitting your actual comments trying to play some stupid personal attack game. <br /><br />I simply addressed your words. If you're not an atheist then fine, I said it did not matter to me. But every comment of yours since then seems to indicate that you are an atheist. After all if you ridicule the notion of God being the creator, then that's a pretty deep corner you've painted yourself into. <br /><br />Either way you keep calling me ignorant yet you've yet to produce one iota of actual factual or logical rebuttal. Just more of the juvenile "nuh uhs" you toss out.<br /><br />I haven't time nor the inclination to waste my time with another ignorant troll who's purpose is not to discuss, but instead just mire folks down in personal insults, attacks etc. <br /><br />All I did was pose a logical argument for the plausibility of a deity. You in turn twisted it to my arguing for the existence of one, so you could mock and ridicule it like most ignorant blog trolls. <br /><br />So have at it. I've wasted all the time I'm going to waste in here. <br /><br />And as for calling someone ignorant who produced voluminous data and logic when you yourself have produced not one iota of rebuttal other than to state "nuh uh", is laughable. <br /><br />You wouldn't last a minute in my 9th grade science class, my students are smarter than you.<br /><br />Have a nice life troll, I've wasted all the time I'm going to waste on the likes of you.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43401170250420410772010-05-05T21:37:45.077-05:002010-05-05T21:37:45.077-05:00Sorry about that Mormanity. I apologize for my rud...Sorry about that Mormanity. I apologize for my rudeness. Go ahead and delete any of mine where I was over the line.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59588574922419911922010-05-05T20:59:57.241-05:002010-05-05T20:59:57.241-05:00Ouch, have had very limited Internet access for a ...Ouch, have had very limited Internet access for a few days and I see that the comments here are out of control. Flavius, appreciate the zeal but let's keep things short and not take page with so many posts. And some of the ugly comments from some anonymous poster deserve to be deleted. Might take a couple out. <br /><br />This is a place for civil dialog, not cheap shots. Or cheap shorts.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72969508700298270372010-05-05T19:44:52.542-05:002010-05-05T19:44:52.542-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60754937538383731862010-05-05T19:15:42.890-05:002010-05-05T19:15:42.890-05:00Flatulence Noseephus, It is either lying on your p...Flatulence Noseephus, It is either lying on your part of pure loss of memory as you continue to counter anything I say with nonsense. See, I had never said 'magic man in the sky" before you claimed me an Atheist. Bad memory or just covering your butt on your untested assumptions, not sure which. Stating that religion had it right where science did not by bringing up LemaƮtre is either pure ignorance or willful misdirection. Stating that the Biblical flood as read in the bible, which is what I had said, could not have happened and then changing it to say a world wide flood to fit your argument, is more misdirection. I said you believe in magic, which is what you equate supernatural with, you then knock down that argument by stating you have no belief system. Which is not what I said at all. More building straw men and knocking them down. More intellectual dishonesty. You expect me to refute straw men, and nonsensical arguments that are not based on any known facts, but on what you hypothesize? Sorry, there is nothing logical about a perspective that says that because there is an unknown, it was caused by a supernatural force. You should go back and learn what the scientific method is, and practice it as your 'irrefutable" case has been knocked down several times. You either do not possess the cognitive skills to understand it or are willfully ignorant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63750935521094772112010-05-05T13:27:35.645-05:002010-05-05T13:27:35.645-05:00Hi Alan, thanks for your advice however I guess th...Hi Alan, thanks for your advice however I guess the concept of my posts are lost here. <br /><br />The position I purport, and the one that my comments spells out is not a matter of faith, belief or disbelief. <br /><br />Its an honest look at logical plausibility of the existence of a deity, afterlife, spirit world, etc. <br /><br />It is not an argument for nor against these things, I merely made the case for the possibility from a logical perspective. <br /><br />If I had faith, I wouldn't drag it through the internet for all the knuckleheads to deride and ridicule as we've seen the propensity here to do. Sort of casting ones pearls before the swine as it were. I simply made a clear and thus far irrefutable case for at least the possibility of the existence of these things, in contrast to the atheist like claims to "know they are not real". <br /><br />Sorry that concept was lost on this crowd. Thought there was a little more cerebral activity in here. Guess I was mistaken.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58641791925841949592010-05-05T11:28:57.198-05:002010-05-05T11:28:57.198-05:00One should not have to be super intelligent to hav...One should not have to be super intelligent to have faith to believe. A child can do it. <br />I hope you find the answers you need.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09660721093314882332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50675845164494319412010-05-05T11:04:45.075-05:002010-05-05T11:04:45.075-05:00Flavious-Flave:
Dude, get a life.Flavious-Flave:<br /><br />Dude, get a life.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18690513445903456962010-05-04T20:23:25.170-05:002010-05-04T20:23:25.170-05:00Anonymous said...
Your whole belief system is bas...Anonymous said...<br /><br /><i>Your whole belief system is based on your belief in magic. </i><br /><br /><br />I don't have a belief system genius.<br /><br />I've repeatedly stated that.<br /><br />How many times do you need that written for you before your superior intellect is able to actually read English?Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40782604170171040472010-05-04T20:20:51.498-05:002010-05-04T20:20:51.498-05:00It is ignorance of this difference that allows you...<i>It is ignorance of this difference that allows you to spout nonsense, with little understanding of science and lots of understanding of assuming everything you don't know can be explained away by the term 'supernatural'.</i><br /><br /><br />Its ignorance to repeatedly lie about what I wrote.<br /><br />And ignorance is repeatedly pretending to offer a counter argument without ever offering an actual argument.<br /><br />Spouting vague general dismissals and lots of "Nuh uhs" is not an argument. When you've got some actual science to discredit the scientific facts, reasoning and logic I produced instead of just attacking me personally, you let me know.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81567772474701299782010-05-04T20:16:26.295-05:002010-05-04T20:16:26.295-05:00Anonymous said...
F, I would have to give yo...<i>Anonymous said...<br /><br /> F, I would have to give you a failing grade on all accounts. You continue to perpetuate the notion that something unknown has supernatural forces working on it</i><br /><br /><br />Then I'd have to give you a failing grade on reading comprehension. <br /><br />Because either you are illiterate, and cannot read or you are purposely and repeatedly misrepresenting everything I've written.<br /><br />Go back and read what I wrote. <br /><br />Find the part where I state that anything is proven.<br /><br />Then try cleaning your glasses, and reading all the places where I repeatedly state I have no answers, only questions.<br /><br />Lying about what I wrote and then pretending to dismiss it hardly constitutes an argument.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82611143599175830392010-05-04T19:54:37.040-05:002010-05-04T19:54:37.040-05:00F, I would have to give you a failing grade on all...F, I would have to give you a failing grade on all accounts. You continue to perpetuate the notion that something unknown has supernatural forces working on it. How about some evidence of that? Real evidence this time, not a billion people can't be wrong type of evidence. You post a lot but say nothing. You need to be schooled in the difference between religious beliefs and one catholic priest opposing the belief of his religion. It is ignorance of this difference that allows you to spout nonsense, with little understanding of science and lots of understanding of assuming everything you don't know can be explained away by the term 'supernatural'. You yourself call the supernatural magic, and your belief in magic disqualifies you from ever finding out the real answer to things. It is all Unfathomable to you, and beyond your understanding, so you just take a short cut and call it supernatural. That allows you to run around saying it is OK not to know things, as they are incomprehensible. You should also not assume someone does not know something because they didn't say it. You failed to answer the question where religion was correct about the natural world and science had it wrong. No idea how you think a catholic priest correcting the church ( religion) proves that. "Like not knowing that a Roman Catholic Priest corrected the entire scientific community on the origins of the universe." ASSumputions, more of them don't make you look smart, just make you look unread. You have no idea what I know and what I don't. That you call me an atheist because I said someone's book is boring, and the magic was a reference to the magic that brought about the book, not in a God. But since you failed to ask what you did not know, you started building straw men and then proceed to knock them down. Your whole belief system is based on your belief in magic. You work incidentals around that belief system so you can prop it up and continue on thinking the same way. Which would of course be, bad science. You talk a lot about science, but show you know little about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49069379504949763592010-05-04T17:15:10.025-05:002010-05-04T17:15:10.025-05:00Clearly science does neither prove nor disprove th...Clearly science does neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity or an afterlife or the existence of a spiritual plane of existence. But when one examines the current collective knowledge and wisdom on the matter of creation, clearly science does at least permit for the possibility of the spiritual, and not in a mystical, but in a natural and real sense, only to be understood as our understanding of dimensional theory expands as does our ability to observe and or measure dimensional impact. Until that time, the presentation of atheism as scientific deduction is an erroneous assumption and is not conducive to learning, but in fact is a catalyst for intellectual stagnation and conclusions that are based not on science, but on personal beliefs that do not always hold up in the light of science. <br /><br />Belief in a deity, an afterlife, a primordial existence, etc, are thus no longer relegated to the realm of the theists but instead offer new and challenging questions for science and the rest of us to examine and contemplate.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81363586946151871982010-05-04T17:15:10.026-05:002010-05-04T17:15:10.026-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15624820580793515602010-05-04T17:13:52.339-05:002010-05-04T17:13:52.339-05:00I recently read an article by an apparent atheist ...I recently read an article by an apparent atheist trying to discredit these questions as "the questions of children" while he went on to explain the natural condition of "space-time being created from nothing". In his strained logic he attempts to discredit the supernatural while in the same breath concluding that all matter, including space time and gravity sprang forth from nothing. He used the fact that sub atomic particles randomly appear in a particle accelerator to validate his claim that there was "nothing" before the big bang, and that all matter was literally created from "nothing", albeit minus a creator. He concludes therefore that it is perfectly natural for matter to just randomly appear out of nothing and purports this scientifically untenable position as fact. This of course is an intellectually lazy argument that ends where it should begin. Concluding that because the sub atomic particle "seems" to appear from nothing, that it must therefore be natural for matter to be created from nothing is neither a scientific nor even a logical deduction. In fact it dismisses several schools of scientific thought, including dimensional theory, which is the most likely explanation for the random appearance of sub atomic particles in the super collider. <br /><br />Clearly logic dictates that this confirms not the absurd notion of something from nothing, but instead the validity of a multi-dimensional universe. After all, scientists have speculated for decades that gravity is actually seeping into our universe from another, perhaps master dimension, not to mention that black holes themselves also support the existence of a multi-dimensional universe. Black holes are created when a massive star collapses upon itself and becomes infinitely dense, and hot (sound familiar?) and thus explodes, appearing to rip a hole in the fabric of space time. The spinning hole literally draws in all matter unlucky enough to move within its gravitational pull. This matter includes even light and gravity, which like all matter drawn in, disappears once passing the edge of the black hole, referred to as the Event Horizon. It does not eject from the other side. It does not "burn up" and leave gas or residual matter. It simply seems to "disappear" beyond the Event Horizon, no more to be seen or measured, which could indicate the presence of other dimensions, not visible to the physical dimension in which we exist, yet that are nonetheless real. <br /><br />Thus the supernatural is just that which cannot be explained by natural laws of this universe, which something in another dimension of course cannot be, until that dimension can be measured or observed. And if that dimension cannot be directly observed, then perhaps its effect on this dimension can be, so some might argue, like the author of the above referenced article attempts to, that this makes it not "supernatural" but simply natural yet advanced. This of course constitutes merely a word game designed to distract from the obvious significance of other dimensions, and their implications with regards to the idea of a "spiritual" plain of existence that may indeed be real, just difficult to quantify in this physical dimension in which we exist. <br /><br />In other words, science, quantum theory, string theory, standard theory, all point to at least the possibility of another dimension in which one might define the "spiritual" places which religion has for so long testified to the existence of. While it may not be a correct deduction, it certainly is a plausible deduction that one could make given the information available. After all if a dimension in which we can neither see, nor measure, does indeed exist and accounts for the spontaneous appearance of matter in this dimension, then its certainly viable that this dimension that may exist in parallel with ours could therefore provide a foundation for the "spirit world" belief held by so many religions and belief systems throughout recorded history.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85021069215193600112010-05-04T17:12:43.722-05:002010-05-04T17:12:43.722-05:00What is random about a multi billion dollar machin...What is random about a multi billion dollar machine, all of the men, resources and materials required to build it, and the massive amounts of energy required to build it? How is this "something from nothing"? Its as if the atheists are not aware of the presence of the "experimentors" in the experiement, or their required involvement to make this "random occurance of matter" occur. So too they ignore the obvious when it comes to the big bang theory, and the creation of space time and all matter in it. They ignore the obvious question, i.e. what created that first sub atomic particle, and what force of energy caused it to expand. And of course when they find that, they'll need to ask what action or reaction created that energy. And when they find that.... you get the point.<br /><br />That they "always existed" is likewise not an answer. Not a scientific one anyway. This explanation offered by a atheist (with a straight face) is in and of itself, supernatural. How long in an "always"? When does an "always" begin? If an always never began, then we are defining matter, or our universe, as "eternal". And the concept of "eternal" existence, even if we're just referring to a sub-atomic particle, is just about as supernatural of a concept as one could produce. For something to be "eternal" is beyond the realm of science as demonstrated in the disproving of Einstein's "cosmological constant" and thus cannot be demonstrated nor comprehended in the pretext of human understanding. Science teaches of actions and reactions, cause and effect. Not "forever". But what is even more difficult to correlate is the concept of trying to explain what force or energy first stirred in the early morning dawn of creation, that caused the first expansion of matter and the creation of space-time. In order for whatever reaction occurred, some "action" must have occurred prior to the initial event in order for the event to have occurred in the first place. If the original "stuff" was superheated then where did the energy come from to create the heat? These questions point to the logical deduction that the matter was not created from "nothing" and the event was not singular at all but merely a naturally occurring (albeit infrequent) process that most likely has occurred before and will occur again. After all, the concept of "something from nothing" is usually the argument made by the theist, and not the atheist, or the scientist. Yet when cornered on the question of pre-primordial matter and energy most atheists and scientists are reduced to the something from nothing theory which is no theory at all, but merely capitulation to the looming supernatural possibilities that are evident at that point. Some will attempt to delay the inevitable by hypothesizing on the "Big Bounce" theory and others that point to "our" big bang being only one of many but ultimately they all arrive at the same point. What happened before that? And what created that, caused that, etc... The question is binary. Either all things appeared from nothing in some manner that can only be described as supernatural from our perspective, or something always existed, which of course demands the eternal which is also a supernatural concept from our temporal, physical perspective.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66266225723062603612010-05-04T17:11:00.586-05:002010-05-04T17:11:00.586-05:00One example would be the testimonies of billions o...One example would be the testimonies of billions of human beings over the expanse of recorded time. True their descriptions and explanations differ but most of them point to a deity or deities and a spiritual plain of existence of some kind and thus share a common discernible thread. One can dismiss them all as collectively deluded if one chooses but that doesn't remove their testimonies nor does it discredit them. The fact is one characteristic that humans seem to possess is a belief in the supernatural, and life before and or after this life. Its a common thread shared by most civilizations (although not all) throughout recorded time. And we can also recognize that human intuition often is demonstrated to be correct, regardless of the validity of the supporting data. Unsupported intuition is often correct as we saw so plainly with the deductions of Aristarchus and Dr Gall. And supported intuition as demonstrated by Ptolemy can be based on incorrect foundations. Therefore to dismiss the theists because of poor evidence, or even a lack thereof is to act in an unscientific manner. And this is what the A-Theist does. <br /><br />In fact, science ultimately points to the existence of the supernatural, at least with regards to creation of space-time, matter and all existence.<br /><br />Science teaches us that some 13.73 billion years ago our universe as we know it came into existence through an event known commonly as the "big bang", which consisted of a sub atomic particle known as a quark (Higgs-Boson Quark) being highly compressed to an "infinite density" while simultaneously being super-heated to an incredible temperature not measurable in modern science. A heat so hot that it cannot literally be described. This caused the mass to expand creating the compounds and noble gases that created all the matter existing today. In fact science can describe events to within nano seconds of this event to a period known as the Planck Epoch, which literally lasted about a trillionth of a second, where space time and gravity separated creating separate forces. And of course some science goes even further, with theories like the "Big Bounce" which contests that "our big bang" was not the "first" big bang, but merely a link in a chain of events where the universe is created and destroyed in an infinite cycle of expansion and implosion. But none of these theories addresses answers the one question that faith and religion has sought to answer since the dawn of recorded history. Creation after all must define the moment when matter itself came into existence. Not "our" matter but all matter. After all, if the first sub atomic particle was compressed and super-heated until it rapidly expanded from some yet un-theorized force creating all of the known universe, where did it come from? Where did the matter for the "primordial atom" come from, and how was it created? Science stops there, or more accurately, a few nanoseconds from that point. Prior to the big bang, science does not seem to want to tread. Sure the super collider experiments hope to produce a Higgs-Boson particle by smashing atoms together at near the speed of light, hoping to demonstrate that random creation of sub atomic particles is possible. Atheists point to this on blogs throughout the web asserting that this proves a God does not exist because this "random occurrence of matter" was proven in the laboratory (if they manage to produce one, which as of this writing, they have not). The irony here of course should be evident to even the most casual reader.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65623127198364436472010-05-04T17:08:46.019-05:002010-05-04T17:08:46.019-05:00Another example can be found in the observations o...Another example can be found in the observations of the Greek Astronomer Aristarchus who lived almost 2000 years before the first astronomical telescopes were invented. During the time of Aristarchus, astronomy consisted of what could be seen with the naked eye, and was mingled with astrology and the occult. To the naked eye, the earth is stationary and the planets, and stars seem to rise and fall around us, thus astronomy at the time of Aristarchus concluded that the earth was the center of the known universe and all else revolved around us. Aristarchus however concluded that the sun and not the earth was the central object of the cosmos, and that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. And while Aristarchus had no valid demonstrable science to demonstrate this theory, in fact most of his calculations were wrong and were indeed based on incorrect observations and conclusions, he nonetheless was correct in that the earth indeed orbits the sun and not the other way around. Of course it wasn't until close to 2000 years later that his theory known as heliocentricity was proved correct by demonstrable and verifiable scientific observation, calculation and experiment. But that didn't negate the validity of the conclusion. Thus we see that the lack of demonstrable evidence does not necessarily disprove a theory and thus cannot be relied upon to reperesent any sort of theory as fact.<br /><br />On the other hand,the appearance of demonstrable evidence does not always confirm a theory either. Several centuries after the death of the Greek astronomer Aristarchus who's accurate yet flawed methods correctly placed the sun and not the earth at the center of the known universe (which now constitutes merely our solar system), the Roman astronomer, Ptolemy, (Claudius Ptolemaeus) presented the world with his own geocentric model of the universe which ignored the hypotheses of Aristarchus and instead placed the earth back at the center of the universe, like Aristotle. However unlike Aristotle, Ptolemy's model actually provided accurate predictions of the positions of the planets, the stars and even accurately predicted eclipses. Ptolemy's model was thus widely adapted, even by the Arab world as it accurately provided a literal "celestial almanac" (which he actually published) that foretold the exact positions of the planets, stars and other heavenly objects and occurrences, on a provable, observable basis. There was in fact just one problem with Ptolemy's model of the solar system.<br /><br />It was all wrong.<br /><br />While his method could accurately tell us precisely where the planets would be at any given moment, as well as the positions of the stars and times of eclipse events, the method he used was inherently flawed. It required the earth to be at the center of the solar system and that, as Aristarchus accurately deduced, was not the case. This required Ptolemy to invent a complex and convoluted orbit for the planets, which included staggered loops in orbit at key intervals to make the math work. But it did work. <br /><br />Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system was not at all accurate in its content, but in its predictive capabilities, it was spot on, thus demonstrating that just because a scientific theory works, doesn't mean it's good science. Ptolemy's predictions were right, but his formula was all wrong.<br /><br />Given the above examples, its clear that bad science can sometimes produce good results, and good science can sometimes produce bad results. Therefore, the concept of a supernatural or supreme intelligence, or a spiritual plain of existence of some sort, falls at least in the category of reasonable hypotheses. After all, there is some peripheral evidence and reasonable conclusions that lead to the possibility of the existence of a deity, deities or at least, the supernatural.Flavius Noseephusnoreply@blogger.com