Post by: Kartazion on 27/08/2022 22:57:03
To initiates and specialists of the law ; It was promised and under oath to have to manage a galaxy to those who were to inherit it. Were the rules followed?
Post by: evan_au on 27/08/2022 23:56:05
- I think "galaxy" throws it, since it only really took off (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=galaxy&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgalaxy%3B%2Cc0) after Hubble's discoveries during WW2
- It would have a much broader set of matches if you used "land" or "country", which have much higher frequency (but curiously, both are declining over time...)
Post by: Colin2B on 28/08/2022 07:16:29
Google can't find it, so I have no chance.I think it might be from the Quran, but a quick search can’t find it in the translation I have.
- I think "galaxy" throws it, since only really took off (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=galaxy&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgalaxy%3B%2Cc0) after Hubble's discoveries during WW2The Greeks used the word to describe the milky way and Chaucer uses it for the same in the 1300s. I suppose they didn’t have much day to day usage in written works, hence low count. Look before 1800 and there are some interesting peaks:
AFE96E4C-C296-4BC0-A858-7105990DE908.jpeg (193.93 kB . 2019x1077 - viewed 3199 times)Interesting your comment on land/country, the Jews were promised a land flowing with milk and honey. On the other hand it might refer to ‘a lot’ as in there are a lot of stars in the milky way.
The syntax is odd, may be the OPs usage?
Post by: Kartazion on 28/08/2022 20:35:21
I think it might be from the Quran, but a quick search can’t find it in the translation I have.Or something from Heracles.
Interesting your comment on land/country, the Jews were promised a land flowing with milk and honey.There we go.
On the other hand it might refer to ‘a lot’ as in there are a lot of stars in the milky way.Isaiah 7:22
And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.
King James Bible
A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey? It’s Not What You Think https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/a-land-flowing-with-milk-and-honey-its-not-what-you-think/ (https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/a-land-flowing-with-milk-and-honey-its-not-what-you-think/)
The promised land is surely not a classic land followed by its herd, but rather something much more important where the world can become whoever it wants. If the promised land is a galaxy, then the stars are the herd that sows milk to feed life.
Does the chosen people deserve this administrator right?
Post by: Kartazion on 30/08/2022 06:34:09
... the stars are the herd that sows milk to feed life.be the light...
But it is easy to imagine for those who have failed in the rules of good conduct and towards the rest of the world, that it would be darkness, and will have to carry all their past actions. Indeed the accumulation of negative energies generated through the mechanisms of life, and by the principle of causality, ultimately remembers and by information, from whom to procured this.
What must come up, must come down.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/08/2022 16:12:04
Post by: Kartazion on 31/08/2022 23:32:22
Promised by whom?Guess?
The same as...
Spoiler: show
Have you checked his bank balance and stock holdings?Your mind is limited to what you believe to be most important, which is money. Or do you practice agnotology? But I know you are not ignorant. So you know that the construction of the future is not done through material or money that can burn or disappear, but rather bet on good behavior and a holly construction of the mind in order to achieve rooting by the latter in order to never fall into the depths.
IOW the work in a life is also to grow our spirit in order to reach a connection with our creator who promises us another life after this one. It is therefore to be able and through an eternal life to continue our existence in good condition. The rest will grind.
This being that an exercise.
Here's what I'm talking about.
Post by: Kartazion on 31/08/2022 23:39:37
Post by: alancalverd on 01/09/2022 11:18:07
I think disease predates capitalism, but as here is money to be made by treating or preventing it, we have eliminated the most common ones.
Amartya Sen pointed out that there has never been a famine in a democracy, and AFAIK most surviving democracies are capitalist.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/09/2022 00:54:54
Only those with stock and money can make meaningful and executable promises, which is why capitalism worksI have clearly specified ultra-liberalism and between parenthesis its under jagent which is capitalism. Ultra liberalism is very well used in the French language, but I have not found anything as a substitute in the English language. So here is the ultra liberalism is a poison that sweeps everything. Meaningful and executable promises are not about money. A promise is a promise and has no venal value. In the end, you seem to me more ignorant than I thought according to your signature.
I think disease predates capitalism, but as here is money to be made by treating or preventing it, we have eliminated the most common ones.Some of the pharmaceutical lobbyists, among other things have blocked through patents, and have rather created bioterrorism than the opposite. Indeed at the beginning the vastness of the Amazon can it and through its flora cure all the diseases which existed. For another example and in natural discovery the cure of Pasteur. The ultra liberal economic model are just mechanisms that only plunder the wealth of others. For example we have the Western settlers who plunder Africa of its mining resources; and not so long from that the containte of slavery. This is the given image which is only reality. You and through your rhetoric you praise me for your denial of reality in relation to what I deplore which is simply this imposed supremacy followed by the current balance sheet of the world which has been shaped as they please. Are you part of it? Or have you known the galley in its literal and figurative sense (struggle)? Because those who are initiated and the architects of the world order will be in the worst of the galleys. This is a promise.
Amartya Sen pointed out that there has never been a famine in a democracy, and AFAIK most surviving democracies are capitalist.Has there never been a famine in a democracy? But what world do you live in? You must have some dough then to say that.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2022 01:36:47
Meaningful and executable promises are not about money.
If I promise that you will receive something, I must either have it (stock) or be able to acquire it (with money) for you. If not, the promise is not executable or meaningful. It could be a wish or a prediction, but it isn't a valid promise.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2022 01:48:21
Has there never been a famine in a democracy?I haven't read Sen's paper in detail but it's an interesting conclusion and I can't think of a case. I'm not sure how voting rights were assigned in Ireland in the 1840s (the potato famine) but there certainly wasn't a Catholic majority in parliament.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/09/2022 01:50:04
It could be a wish or a prediction, but it isn't a valid promise.I promise you hell at the expense of love.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2022 10:17:04
Never bet more than you can afford to lose, or promise what you can't deliver. Unless you are a politician, of course, in which case I and all real men despise you..
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2022 11:13:07
Only those with stock and money can make meaningful and executable promises, which is why capitalism works.Plenty of people who don't have the resources still make promises. (and I agree with you about the politicians...)
But in the case of this discussion, it's apparently even worse.
It's a promise made by an entity which doesn't exist.
Is that worthy of the effort of discussion?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2022 13:54:37
I forget who was involved but the sum of £50M was agreed. The purchaser then met the seller in the gents toilet and said "You know perfectly well I haven't got £50M. Can you lend it to me, against the security of my new TV company?"
The loan contract was signed for a consideration of £1. Now that's how to do business.
Post by: Kartazion on 03/09/2022 16:10:01
Never bet more than you can afford to lose, or promise what you can't deliver. Unless you are a politician, of course, in which case I and all real men despise you..Neither. I bet you by the promise and with exact and flawless certainty to have someone type on a search engine "Alpha Blondy Jerusalem" who has read this sentence.
It's a promise made by an entity which doesn't exist.You will have no evidence to give of what you are advancing. Even less proof of your assertion as a bluff. You didn't know.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2022 17:02:46
Neither. I bet you by the promise and with exact and flawless certainty to have someone type on a search engine "Alpha Blondy Jerusalem" who has read this sentence.I think the people who read this forum have more sense. And how would you know anyway?
Post by: Kartazion on 03/09/2022 17:05:14
And how would you know anyway?It is mathematics by statistics.
Post by: Kartazion on 06/09/2022 23:57:29
Post by: Kartazion on 07/09/2022 01:52:26
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2022 09:48:22
Post by: Kartazion on 07/09/2022 23:25:43
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2022 08:35:39
You will have no evidence to give of what you are advancing. Even less proof of your assertion as a bluff. You didn't know.Actually, I do have evidence of the idea which I advanced.
The idea is that God does not exist.
The reason for this is, of course, Colin the God-eating caterpillar.
Colin's defining feature is that he eats and thereby destroys any God in the universe.
For any God to exist, you have to prove the non-existence of Colin.
Can you do that?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/09/2022 08:40:15
On the other hand, we can clearly see the restraint and the shyness of what seems to me to be a taboo.What taboo? I don’t see anything in the replies that could be considered a taboo
By the way @Bored chemist I exist
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2022 12:49:56
There are no surviving dinosaurs, but the plants they ate are still around. The absence of a species does not imply the absence of whatever it might have eaten.
However the apparent absence of a god clearly implies that any god-eating caterpillars are at least very hungry and almost certainly extinct.
Except that caterpillars are the leaf-eating larvae of jaw-less butterflies. So if you come across a theophagic papilionoid, there clearly is a god, all Colin's siblings have completed their metamorphosis, and god is a nectar-bearing vegetable.
Which is half of what you need to create a land flowing with milk and honey, the remainder being a Holy Cow.
Face it, if 80,000 zombies can choose a prime minister from a bucket of slime, I'm definitely Papal material, or maybe Chief Rabbi.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2022 12:57:31
He has no siblings and is immortal.
In many ways, he resembles a God.
This leads to an interesting paradox.
If someone does think they have a proof of the non existence of Colin, I will go through it, crossing out the word "Colin" and inserting the word "God".
In doing so, I will produce a proof of the non existence of God.
One way or another, Colin proves that there is no God.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2022 13:59:14
The existence of Colin proves that there is, or at least once was, enough god to sustain him.
The nonexistence of Colin has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of whatever he might eat.
Most gods have siblings.
Post by: Colin2B on 08/09/2022 16:35:40
Most gods have siblings.I have never eaten a sibling (knowingly)
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2022 18:34:17
Chorus:
If you're like me
It's great to be
Nibbling
a sibbling
and may the Lord have mercy on your soul.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2022 18:38:20
The existence of Colin proves that there is, or at least once was, enough god to sustain him.No, it doesn't.
The use of the word "eat" is a metaphor; not sustenance.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2022 18:39:19
The nonexistence of Colin has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of whatever he might eat.Yes he does, you can not have your God and let Colin eat it.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2022 19:28:43
X always destroys (eats, if you will) Y
Therefore X => NOT(Y), obviously
But NOT(X) => POSSIBLE (Y)
and we have no evidence of X.
Occam demands minimal assumption, thus allows for the existence of a god, edible or otherwise. But then he would, wouldn't he?
Post by: Kartazion on 08/09/2022 22:20:30
Is it a problem to talk about Zionism and the promised land?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/09/2022 22:54:38
I feel a song coming on. Possibly channeling Tom Lehrer, in praise of cannibalism.I prefer to poison pigeons in the park!
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2022 23:49:34
Tripped over your own logic, my friend.So, before you can say "there is a God" (or even "there might be a God") you have to prove that Colin doesn't exist.
X always destroys (eats, if you will) Y
Therefore X => NOT(Y), obviously
But NOT(X) => POSSIBLE (Y)
and we have no evidence of X.
Occam demands minimal assumption, thus allows for the existence of a god, edible or otherwise. But then he would, wouldn't he?
Because, if Colin exists, God can't.
Colin is much simpler than God and thus intrinsically more probable.
If you can't have both, Occam says you have to assume the simple one is "right"..
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 00:56:11
you have to prove that Colin doesn't exist.No. I merely stated that you have provided no evidence of Colin's existence, so I have to resort to Occam. Or at least Bayes, which gives the Almighty a 50-50 a priori probability of existing. Not good odds for a hardline atheist.
Quote
Colin is much simpler than GodYou can't infer that from your stated characteristic of eating god. A virus is a lot simpler than its host, but a predator is usually at least more intelligent than its prey.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 01:02:02
Is it a problem to talk about Zionism and the promised land?Not for me, but it would be irrelevant to the majority of our correspondents and certainly inappropriate to a science forum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2022 08:53:22
QuoteYou are failing to grasp the fact that these are defining characteristics of Colin and are therefore true by definition.
Colin is much simpler than God
You can't infer that from your stated characteristic of eating god. A virus is a lot simpler than its host, but a predator is usually at least more intelligent than its prey.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2022 08:56:56
No. I merely stated that you have provided no evidence of Colin's existence, so I have to resort to Occam. Or at least Bayes, which gives the Almighty a 50-50 a priori probability of existing. Not good odds for a hardline atheist.The "50:50" argument also applies to Colin.
And to George, the God eating spider.
And so , for God to exist, you must have neither Colin nor George.
So God is a 1 in 4 shot.
And then, there's Susan...
Post by: Colin2B on 09/09/2022 09:02:36
So God is a 1 in 4 shot.Mmm. So after Susan there are an infinite number of god eaters? That seems to reduce the odds of a god existing.
And then, there's Susan...
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2022 09:52:02
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 11:23:43
Mmm. So after Susan there are an infinite number of god eaters? That seems to reduce the odds of a god existing.Not according to Occam.
The more preconditions you have to apply before a condition is met, the less likely it is to be met*.
Your target is the nonexistence of god, but you now require the actual or possible existence of an infinite number of deophages to meet that target, and the absence, or failure to perform, of any of them, would invalidate your precondition.
So you either need to demonstrate the existence and function of an infinity of creatures with a common defining characteristic that each can eat the next before being eaten by its predecessor, or accept the possibility of a god.
* the economist's defence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2022 13:20:16
Yyou now require the actual or possible existence of an infinite number of deophages to meet that targetNo, I only need one.
You seem not to understand that it's not a matter of "
failure to perform.
Their performance is the same as their existence.
Your target is the nonexistence of godIt's not a target; it's an observation.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 14:28:28
Their performance is the same as their existence.If only that were true of anything, these days.
It's not a target; it's an observation.Then you are wasting your time. Observations do not require proof.
Post by: Colin2B on 10/09/2022 06:04:36
So you either need to demonstrate the existence and function of an infinity of creatures with a common defining characteristic that each can eat the next before being eaten by its predecessor, or accept the possibility of a god.Not sure they are cannibalistic. However, wouldn’t you need to prove the existence of god before you could suggest the existence of a creature whose existence depends on it eating gods?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2022 10:04:25
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 10:13:06
existence of a creature whose existence depends on it eating gods?
The use of the word "eat" is a metaphor; not sustenance.
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 00:37:02
The reason for this is, of course, Colin the God-eating caterpillar.This caterpillar story and what follows is the fruit of your delirious halucination.
Colin's defining feature is that he eats and thereby destroys any God in the universe.
For any God to exist, you have to prove the non-existence of Colin.
Can you do that?
I don’t see anything in the replies that could be considered a tabooMore than a tabbo. A diversion from the OP.
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 00:40:47
No. You can build one unprovable hypothesis on another. It's called philosophy, religion, economics, or string theory. They vary in effect from useless to dangerous.I guess string theory is useless compared to theology which can be dangerous.
This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 08:46:54
This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God.Why do you say they do it "falsely"?
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 22:37:37
Why do you say they do it "falsely"?e.g
an entity which doesn't exist.Calumny.
This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God because theology can be dangerous.
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 22:48:18
In France if you are against the idea of Zionism, then you are accused of anti-Semitism. You are therefore obliged to endorse Zionism. [fr] https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/l-antisionisme-est-bien-un-antisemitisme-24-05-2021-2427846_2.php
Angolsaxon side it's just in discussion. [en] https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/is-anti-zionism-anti-semitism
What taboo? I don’t see anything in the replies that could be considered a tabooLet's go then...😜
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 22:59:58
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 23:00:32
You didn't answer the question.Why do you say they do it "falsely"?e.gan entity which doesn't exist.Calumny.
This is why scientists reserve the right to falsely highlight the non-existence of a God because theology can be dangerous.
Why do you say it's done falsely?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 23:03:08
This caterpillar story and what follows is the fruit of your delirious halucination.No. It's a perfectly respectable theological point.
God can't exist becasuse of Colin.
So, before you talk of God, you need to prove Colin's absence.
But you can't.
You just say you think it's an hallucination.
You don't realise that your God is the hallucination.
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 23:18:49
You don't realise that your God is the hallucination.Poor Bored... My God is that of the USA. Yes dear friend in God we trust.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2022 08:34:48
Post by: Kartazion on 17/09/2022 06:09:56
It's sad that some people can not accept Colin.Your Colin who eats the Gods is big nonsense. So yes I refute this stuff. It's so unfounded that when you type on your search engine 'Colin who eats the Gods' you come across this thread. So your God-eating Colin doesn't exist.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2022 11:54:35
You will need to do better than that.
Just claiming "it's nonsense" is not a valid argument, is it?
Post by: Colin2B on 17/09/2022 22:31:03
your God-eating Colin doesn't exist.Don’t bank on it, he just hasn’t revealed himself yet
Post by: Kartazion on 18/09/2022 01:10:15
So, the basis on which you say he doesn't exist, is the Google found him.What Google finds is this thread with your impiety of this God eater story. And this thread says it doesn't exist 'cause you made up this story.
Don’t bank on it, he just hasn’t revealed himself yetRevelation is surely not to surprise God but men. IOW God is already aware without one of his creatures revealing themselves to him.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/09/2022 10:42:03
. And this thread says it doesn't exist 'cause you made up this story.Have you not realised yet?
You are trying to push a story that is "made up" by bronze age goat herders.
The things about Colin, is that unless you can actually prove he doesn't exist then there is no God.
The fact that he's hypothetical does not change that.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/09/2022 12:17:08
Have you not realised yet?Even though the Bible and other texts would have been written by Bronze Age goat herders, well they are not talking about God eaters. Please give me a source on Colin and God ... on the claim you are fabricate.
You are trying to push a story that is "made up" by bronze age goat herders.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/09/2022 13:58:39
Please give me a source on ColinBecause I said so.
Now, either prove me wrong, or accept that God doesn't exist.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/09/2022 15:32:31
Post by: alancalverd on 19/09/2022 01:10:12
In the beginning was a butterfly who laid an egg that turned into a caterpillar that ate deities. It was a very hungry caterpillar [note "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" is a well-known and respected holey book for children] so he ate all the possible deities, then pupated, turned into a butterfly, and flew away.
The extraordinary thing about lepidoptera is that no recognisable anatomy persists from the caterpillar to the adult, therefore the nonexistence of Colin in the present does not preclude the possibility of his existence in the past.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2022 09:16:57
I'm proving you wrong because your story about Colin eating Gods doesn't exist.That particualr fallacy is just "proof by assertion".
It won't work on a science page.
Try making your point like a grown-up rather than
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
Post by: Kartazion on 19/09/2022 22:39:22
Here's your story, translated from (or at least by) Ancient Hebrew to give it credence.You translated from a document that does not exist.
In the beginning was a butterfly who laid an egg that turned into a caterpillar that ate deities. It was a very hungry caterpillar [note "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" is a well-known and respected holey book for children] so he ate all the possible deities, then pupated, turned into a butterfly, and flew away.You fabricate. You want us to believe that your caterpillar story has something to do with Colin eating God.
The extraordinary thing about lepidoptera is that no recognisable anatomy persists from the caterpillar to the adult, therefore the nonexistence of Colin in the present does not preclude the possibility of his existence in the past.No source from the past speaks of an analogy of a caterpillar eating gods. More seriously Colin that is a caterpillar and eats gods was invented here in this thread. That it existed is possible, but currently unavailable.
That particualr fallacy is just "proof by assertion".So you make up a story about some Colin who eats Gods, and I have to prove he doesn't exist? Since you invented it in an abstract form, wouldn't it be logical to say that it doesn't exist in real life? So Colin doesn't really exist; You only imagined him.
It won't work on a science page.
Try making your point like a grown-up rather than
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
Post by: alancalverd on 19/09/2022 22:44:48
You translated from a document that does not exist.Let's see your proof of the nonexistence of my source document, please.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/09/2022 22:48:29
No source from the past speaks of an analogy of a caterpillar eating gods.I wrote my contribution 21 hours ago. That is a source from the past, and it is more credible than Genesis verse 21.
Post by: Kartazion on 20/09/2022 01:42:19
Let's see your proof of the nonexistence of my source document, please.
That is a source from the past, ...Can you give me the source of your past document? You can not... That's the proof.
..., and it is more credible than Genesis verse 21.The Bible is the most read book in the world. Your story of Colin the caterpillar who eats Gods does not exist. Do you see where the difference in credibility is?
Post by: Colin2B on 20/09/2022 08:29:45
The Bible is the most read book in the world.Books like Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie etc are also widely translated and readaround the world, but popularity doesn’t make something true, neither does belief.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2022 10:23:43
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2022 13:15:23
Your story of Colin the caterpillar who eats Gods does not exist.It must exist because you are discussing it.
Truth is not a popularity contest.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2022 13:17:03
You translated from a document that does not exist.How could that be possible?
It's clearly wrong, in this instance- but that's beside the point.
How could Alan translate something that doesn't exist?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2022 13:22:15
So you make up a story about some Colin who eats Gods, and I have to prove he doesn't exist?Yes.
That's how logic works.
If Colin exists then God doesn't.
So the non-existence of Colin is a pre-requisite for your assertions that God exists.
That was true before I wrote about it.
The existence of a God requires- and always has required- the absence of Colin.
It doesn't matter that mankind may have taken millennia to realise this.
And, for what it's worth, I picked up the idea of Colin, from the 'net a wile ago.
So, if you want to tell us that God exists, you need to start by proving that your god is,at least, possible.
And He's only possible if Colin doesn't exist.
So, yes, you need to prove Colin's absence.
Don't bother to come back unless you can show that.
Good luck
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2022 13:23:13
Can you give me the source of your past document? You can not... That's the proof.Proof of what?
Post by: Kartazion on 21/09/2022 06:47:57
How could Alan translate something that doesn't exist?He invented a source that does not exist.
Proof of what?The proof that the document you are talking about does not exist.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/09/2022 07:19:10
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2022 10:48:12
So you make up a story about some Colin who eats GodsIt seems other cultures know him in a different form.
https://www.facebook.com/EricTheGodEatingPenguin/about_profile_transparency
But that's beside the point.
As I said.
If Colin exists then God doesn't.
So the non-existence of Colin is a pre-requisite for your assertions that God exists.
That was true before I wrote about it.
The existence of a God requires- and always has required- the absence of Colin.
It doesn't matter that mankind may have taken millennia to realise this.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/09/2022 11:47:21
It seems other cultures know him in a different form.Your different form of culture has nothing to do with the original you made. You talk to me about a caterpillar that eats the Gods, and you compare it as a source say close to the God eating magic penguin. So who is it ? God who eats or God who is eaten?
Post by: Kartazion on 21/09/2022 11:51:05
I translated it from a source I wrote earlier.So you translated it from Hebrew to do it in English afterwards... a source you wrote earlier...
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2022 12:42:11
You might want to read that through a few times.It seems other cultures know him in a different form.Your different form of culture has nothing to do with the original you made. You talk to me about a caterpillar that eats the Gods, and you compare it as a source say close to the God eating magic penguin. So who is it ? God who eats or God who is eaten?
Post by: paul cotter on 21/09/2022 14:02:46
Post by: Colin2B on 21/09/2022 14:20:09
Since I am a god-like creature, am I at risk?No, only unicorns and similar gods.
Not sure where you heard the rumour, but I can assure you I have never eaten a god. I’m more concerned about the suggestions of the non-existence of Colin, quite worrying really, especially as the OP is suggesting that whatever you believe to be real must be real.
Post by: paul cotter on 21/09/2022 15:57:12
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2022 19:55:23
You seem to have fallen foul of the absurdity of English.It seems other cultures know him in a different form.Your different form of culture has nothing to do with the original you made. You talk to me about a caterpillar that eats the Gods, and you compare it as a source say close to the God eating magic penguin. So who is it ? God who eats or God who is eaten?
"I saw a man eating chicken "
and
"I saw a man eating shark"
are rather different in terms of the subject and object of the verb.
(There are also other possible interpretations; English is sometimes good at ambiguity).
You need to work it out from the context.
And the context here is in two parts.
First of all, I told you that Eric and Colin are similar. You should have understood from that that ... Eric and Colin are similar.
Secondly, a bit of browsing through that FB page would tell you the same thing; Eric eats Gods.
So the real problem here is that you somehow assumed I'm the stupid one.
You should probably avoid that mistake in the future.
Post by: Kartazion on 21/09/2022 22:57:04
Post by: Kartazion on 21/09/2022 23:09:22
Post by: Kartazion on 21/09/2022 23:12:10
Post by: alancalverd on 21/09/2022 23:40:35
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2022 23:44:45
Atheists no longer know what to invent as a wacky story to try to convince themselves of the non-existence of God. Eating a God... it's really nonsense.I think you will find it's the theists who make up nonsense; count the contradictions in the Bible.
But I agree with this bit.
"a God... it's really nonsense."
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2022 23:49:27
If someone does think they have a proof of the non existence of Colin, I will go through it, crossing out the word "Colin" and inserting the word "God".
In doing so, I will produce a proof of the non existence of God.
One way or another, Colin proves that there is no God.
When you say things like
In definition of a God to the detriment of a creature: The God is the creator of all things. Including his creatures. The atheists imply that God would have created a creature which eats it itself and moreover how? God is presumed immortal... Cheers these atheists...you are heading into the territory I was talking about earlier.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/09/2022 01:01:55
I respect your position that you don't believe in God. But open another thread to discuss your arguments.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2022 09:01:12
The question was "Do you recognize the origin of this text?"
And, thus far, nobody has said yes.
You can probably close the thread.
Post by: paul cotter on 22/09/2022 14:42:09
Post by: Colin2B on 22/09/2022 16:15:13
I am not sure when the term galaxy first came into use but it must have been relatively recent.The Greeks used the word to describe the milky way and Chaucer uses it for the same in the 1300s
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85381.msg685946#msg685946
Post by: Kryptid on 22/09/2022 17:51:04
OK.
The question was "Do you recognize the origin of this text?"
And, thus far, nobody has said yes.
I'm wondering if it's a rhetorical question. Kartazion seems to imply he knows where it's from, so... @Kartazion do you know where that text is from?
Post by: paul cotter on 22/09/2022 18:31:44
Post by: alancalverd on 22/09/2022 21:23:37
Quote
The word is derived from the Greek galaxias (γαλαξίας), literally 'milky',hence the land flowing with milk (γαλα) and honey (μελι).
Post by: Kartazion on 22/09/2022 22:07:23
Kartazion seems to imply he knows where it's from, so... @Kartazion do you know where that text is from?This text comes from an occult origin where simply the substitution of land is galaxy.
It is also a seed story where only the good plants will be kept and the weeds will be used to be able to create a difference in tolerance potential which will allow the forces of good and evil to be balanced.
Post by: Kartazion on 22/09/2022 22:15:37
hence the land flowing with milk👍
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2022 08:43:30
Post by: Colin2B on 23/09/2022 10:56:54
So you'm talkin' 'bout Devon, eh? Been there. Lovely. Cream tea with honey - can't be beat.That’s rather thick milk, almost butter, but I think you are right. Perhaps we’d better start breaking out Parry’s sheet music!
Post by: Kartazion on 24/09/2022 08:12:22
The Devon-style scone:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Cornish_cream_tea_2.jpg/1024px-Cornish_cream_tea_2.jpg)
Post by: Colin2B on 24/09/2022 10:07:30
Oh great, we already have one warmonger in the world, now we have someone else trying to rekindle old enmities ;D
The Devon-style scone:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Cornish_cream_tea_2.jpg/1024px-Cornish_cream_tea_2.jpg)
Post by: alancalverd on 24/09/2022 12:08:02
Fact is, however, that there is no real conflict, just rational engineering:
Structural integrity depends on the age of the scone and the viscosity of the cream. Spreading clotted cream (Cornwall) can destroy a fresh crumbly substrate, so you need to apply a base coat of adhesive jam, but once the scone is more than a couple of hours old it needs tempering with liquid cream (Devon) to prevent it exploding at the first bite.