Letter to a Christian Nation

[Leela]

no, leela, do your own work. if you don’t understand an argument or a theory that you are posting, then don’t post it.

nor have i claimed that every other theory is impossible, only some are a violation of the laws of physics.

as to the joke, no its not a joke, you quoted from that source, so obviously you understood it. why would that be a joke?

nor am i claiming that all scientists agree, there are different opinions, but there is generally accepted scientific theory, like evolution, or relativity, or the big bang.

simply put, don’t post what you don’t understand well enough to defend.

I thought it was a joke because you are suggesting that these scientists just disproved all their own research with the quote you picked. They don’t seem to be aware of it.

Are you conceding that your claim that the only scientific theory that is currently considered viable is a universe that begins with a Big Bang while all other theories (Big Bounce, oscillatory universe, multiple universes) are considered to be impossible is unjustified. If so we can move on.

I’ve already said that I’m willing to accept for the sake of argument that the universe had a beginning. How does the First Cause argument proceed from there?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

if you can hand me any of these i will be impressed

1. points in space
2. infinite number of paths
3. any number of instants

none of these things are existent, do some research before you post

Hi Petey,

I think you are taking an unusual position in claiming that locations in space, instants in time, and paths from one point to another do not exist simply because you can’t hold them in your hand. But if that is indeed your position, we are at an impasse.

Best,
Leela

 

[davidv]

I thought it was a joke because you are suggesting that these scientists just disproved all their own research with the quote you picked. They don’t seem to be aware of it.

Are you conceding that your claim that the only scientific theory that is currently considered viable is a universe that begins with a Big Bang while all other theories (Big Bounce, oscillatory universe, multiple universes) are considered to be impossible is unjustified. If so we can move on.

I’ve already said that I’m willing to accept for the sake of argument that the universe had a beginning. How does the First Cause argument proceed from there?

Best,
Leela

Have read Thomas Aquinas’s explanations of this? They can be found here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I thought it was a joke because you are suggesting that these scientists just disproved all their own research with the quote you picked. They don’t seem to be aware of it.

it was no joke, why did you post something you don’t know well enough to defend? this isn’t a contest, you hold positions because you seek some competitive advantage, i hold positions that i believe until proven different. thats why my positions don’t change much, yours change by the day.

Are you conceding that your claim that the only scientific theory that is currently considered viable is a universe that begins with a Big Bang while all other theories (Big Bounce, oscillatory universe, multiple universes) are considered to be impossible is unjustified. If so we can move on.

i never claimed that, i told you that you were proposing discredited theories because they violate the laws of physics

I’ve already said that I’m willing to accept for the sake of argument that the universe had a beginning. How does the First Cause argument proceed from there?

if you wish to discuss first cause, you may offer any arguments you have against it here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=285099

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Petey,

I think you are taking an unusual position in claiming that locations in space, instants in time, and paths from one point to another do not exist simply because you can’t hold them in your hand. But if that is indeed your position, we are at an impasse.

Best,
Leela

you are misstating my position, they exist as concepts, but i have not seen them, so at this point i i doubt that they are existent.

 

[cranster]

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic
Executive summary: Potential infinities exist. Actual infinities don’t.

You could read Aristotle for Everybody in a couple of evenings.

That is an actual infinity. When do you finish counting and reach it?

The idea is to just keep counting.

Best,
Leela

Leela I’m going to respond to your other questions tomorrow when I have time, but I just wanted to take 2 secs here.

I think you just answered what I was trying to get at. If the universe came into existance an infinite amount of days prior to today. That would be actual infinity, and unatainable. Just keep counting backwords without ever stopping to get to the day the universe came into existance. You will never reach that day.

 

[Leela]

Leela I’m going to respond to your other questions tomorrow when I have time, but I just wanted to take 2 secs here.

I think you just answered what I was trying to get at. If the universe came into existance an infinite amount of days prior to today. That would be actual infinity, and unatainable. Just keep counting backwords without ever stopping to get to the day the universe came into existance. You will never reach that day.

I understand that, I just don’t see that as a problem, especially for theists like you who believe there is a God who exists outside of time. Such a God can witness this infinite continuum of time form the perspective of eternity, though as human beings we only experience “now.” Talking about counting days into the past of the future is purely conception and to me is coherent conceptionally.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi Petey,

I said “I think you are taking an unusual position in claiming that locations in space, instants in time, and paths from one point to another do not exist simply because you can’t hold them in your hand. But if that is indeed your position, we are at an impasse.”

you are misstating my position, they exist as concepts, but i have not seen them, so at this point i i doubt that they are existent.

Are you really sincere in your doubt of the existance of multiple paths from one point to another? that one location in space is different from another? that one instant in time is different from another? These things are commonly accepted to exist in STEM rather than as concepts. Once again, if you really don’t think that such things exist other than as concepts, I’m sure that I will be unable to convince you that they are infinite. So we are at an impasse. I hope you won’t continue to accuse me of not addressing your concerns. I’m doing the best I can, I just don’t think there is anything I can say to someone who doubts such things.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you really sincere in your doubt of the existance of multiple paths from one point to another? that one location in space is different from another? that one instant in time is different from another? These things are commonly accepted to exist in STEM rather than as concepts.

these concepts all exist, but only in the form of neurochemistry, they are not materially existent in the observable universe.

i can imagine an infinite number of ‘puff the magic dragons’ roaming about the universe, this concept would exist in the exact same manner as the purely mathematical infinites that you cite, conceptually, confined to the electro-chemical interactions of my brain.

Once again, if you really don’t think that such things exist other than as concepts, I’m sure that I will be unable to convince you that they are infinite. So we are at an impasse. I hope you won’t continue to accuse me of not addressing your concerns. I’m doing the best I can, I just don’t think there is anything I can say to someone who doubts such things.

you are fighting established science on this point, read a neuroanatomy text, there are parts of your brain directly concerned with handling ‘conceptual thinking’

you have failed so far to convince me, or any one else to my knowledge, because you have failed to present convincing arguments as of yet

you doubt 2000 years of faith in a personal G-d, that billions upon billions have believed throughout history, why are you upset that we need more evidence of your assertions? you wouldn’t accept the massive we had on that subject

you are fighting established science on this point, read a neuroanatomy text, there are parts of your brain directly concerned with handling ‘conceptual thinking’

have you considered the possibility that you may just be flat out wrong?

offer convincing evidence, if you want to be taken seriously as a thinker

 

[Leela]

Hi Petey,

I asked, "Are you really sincere in your doubt of the existance of multiple paths from one point to another? that one location in space is different from another? that one instant in time is different from another? These things are commonly accepted to exist in STEM rather than as concepts. "

these concepts all exist, but only in the form of neurochemistry, they are not materially existent in the observable universe.

i can imagine an infinite number of ‘puff the magic dragons’ roaming about the universe, this concept would exist in the exact same manner as the purely mathematical infinites that you cite, conceptually, confined to the electro-chemical interactions of my brain.
…
you are fighting established science on this point, read a neuroanatomy text, there are parts of your brain directly concerned with handling ‘conceptual thinking’

you have failed so far to convince me, or any one else to my knowledge, because you have failed to present convincing arguments as of yet

you doubt 2000 years of faith in a personal G-d, that billions upon billions have believed throughout history, why are you upset that we need more evidence of your assertions? you wouldn’t accept the massive we had on that subject

you are fighting established science on this point, read a neuroanatomy text, there are parts of your brain directly concerned with handling ‘conceptual thinking’

have you considered the possibility that you may just be flat out wrong?

offer convincing evidence, if you want to be taken seriously as a thinker

I would very much prefer if you thought me so unworthy of being taken seriously that you decided that my posts were unworthy of response.

I will continue to assert that multiple paths from one point to another do not exist as mental contructs alone but exist as part of physical reality, that one location in space is different from another not just in my mind or yours but in physical reality, and that one instant in time is different from another. These things are commonly accepted to exist in STEM rather than as concepts. Remember that the S in STEM is space and the T in STEM is time. Space and time are actually believed to exist and not just in our minds.

You can continue to deny their existence if you want but if you do, we will have nothing to talk about.

You have further aserted that not only do such things not exist in the observable universe, I am “fighting established science on this point” by asserting that these things do exist. Can you point to any evidence to support your claim that scientists do not consider that one point in space is no different from another? or one point in time is no different from another? or that paths from one point to another do not physically exist?

Best,
Leela

 

[IloveTheLord]

Hi all,

I’ve been lurking on these boards for quite sometime, enjoying the discussions I’ve been reading (for the most part), but I have to say, warpspeedpetey, that you’re being extremely hypocritical, rude, and un-Christian-like to Leela.

Post after post, you keep telling her to back up her claims or do some research, or post her own thoughts, but from what I’ve been reading, you do none of these things yourself.

From what I can tell, your idea of backing up your own claims is “you’re ignorant. Read a book.” But you never cite any of your own claims about science either. Rather, you keep spouting generalities like “you are fighting established science on this point,” or “do some research before you post,” or “don’t post what you don’t understand well enough to defend.” You haven’t given any evidence that you do any of these things yourself, or even that you really understand science as much as you claim to.

And being rude and insulting is just uncivil and uncalled for. We should do better than that as Christians.

Sorry if this comes off as trolling, but I’m not a fan of attacking people who don’t share my beliefs, especially when they’re the ones behaving themselves. I’d certainly like to see Leela come over to our side, but belittling her isn’t the way to do it.

-Joan

these concepts all exist, but only in the form of neurochemistry, they are not materially existent in the observable universe.

i can imagine an infinite number of ‘puff the magic dragons’ roaming about the universe, this concept would exist in the exact same manner as the purely mathematical infinites that you cite, conceptually, confined to the electro-chemical interactions of my brain.

you are fighting established science on this point, read a neuroanatomy text, there are parts of your brain directly concerned with handling ‘conceptual thinking’

you have failed so far to convince me, or any one else to my knowledge, because you have failed to present convincing arguments as of yet

you doubt 2000 years of faith in a personal G-d, that billions upon billions have believed throughout history, why are you upset that we need more evidence of your assertions? you wouldn’t accept the massive we had on that subject

you are fighting established science on this point, read a neuroanatomy text, there are parts of your brain directly concerned with handling ‘conceptual thinking’

have you considered the possibility that you may just be flat out wrong?

offer convincing evidence, if you want to be taken seriously as a thinker

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Petey,

I asked, "Are you really sincere in your doubt of the existance of multiple paths from one point to another? that one location in space is different from another? that one instant in time is different from another? These things are commonly accepted to exist in STEM rather than as concepts. "

I would very much prefer if you thought me so unworthy of being taken seriously that you decided that my posts were unworthy of response.

 

[Leela]

Leela;4423744:

Hi Petey,

I asked, "Are you really sincere in your doubt of the existance of multiple paths from one point to another? that one location in space is different from another? that one instant in time is different from another? These things are commonly accepted to exist in STEM rather than as concepts. "
…

some people are unaware or gullible, people new to their faith see these arguments, they may take you as a serious thinker and be disturbed. so you must be refuted.

Hi Petey,

I didn’t realize that you’ve been performing for other people who you deem less capable. I should have known. Since you are actually not discussing with me but rather harassing me, I see no reason to respond to any of your posts from now on.

Leela

 

[IloveTheLord]

some people are unaware or gullible, people new to their faith see these arguments, they may take you as a serious thinker and be disturbed. so you must be refuted.

Hi Petey and Leela,

Petey:
As someone who’s relatively “new to their faith,” (I came into the light about five years ago), I’ve been reading these discussions with great interest. I was content to be a lurker, but this particular post compelled me to make a post of my own to say thanks, but I’m perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions and opinions when I read posts by the likes of Leela. Seems awfully arrogant and un-Christian of you to proclaim yourself the arbiter for us “unaware or gullible” newcomers.

I had been hoping that you would refute Leela’s statements by following your own advice and providing evidence to back up your claims, but as far as I can tell, your arguments consist mainly of telling Leela to “read a book,” or “google” something, while never citing any specific sources yourself to back up claims like, “modern science completely disposes of the reality of these assertions.” Leela challenged you to cite actual evidence for statements like this several times, but you have yet to do so even once as far as I can tell, which is disappointing because at first it really seemed like you knew your stuff, but now it just appears to me that you only claim to know a lot about science and the best you can do is:

I am not going to teach you physics or mathematics. there is not time or room for that.

I had really been hoping that you’d follow your own advice: “if your wrist is good enough to type out an url or a book title please do so.”

Leela:
But back to the topic at hand. Leela, does the concept of infinite time necessarily have to progress equally in both directions? Can’t time have a starting point or beginning and then progress infinitely from that point on? I believe it’s perfectly well within God’s ability to start a universe on an infinite path.

-Joan

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4424715:

Hi Petey,

I didn’t realize that you’ve been performing for other people who you deem less capable. I should have known. Since you are actually not discussing with me but rather harassing me, I see no reason to respond to any of your posts from now on.

Leela

how many of us have had a problem with you? why did you think that was?

did you think we were just jealous or something?

so either, all of us are behaving unfairly to you , or you are acting in the manner that many of us find insulting and offensive.

which do you think that is?

 

[Swan]

Hi Petey and Leela,

Petey:
As someone who’s relatively “new to their faith,” (I came into the light about five years ago), I’ve been reading these discussions with great interest. I was content to be a lurker, but this particular post compelled me to make a post of my own to say thanks, but I’m perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions and opinions when I read posts by the likes of Leela. Seems awfully arrogant and un-Christian of you to proclaim yourself the arbiter for us “unaware or gullible” newcomers.

I had been hoping that you would refute Leela’s statements by following your own advice and providing evidence to back up your claims, but as far as I can tell, your arguments consist mainly of telling Leela to “read a book,” or “google” something, while never citing any specific sources yourself to back up claims like, “modern science completely disposes of the reality of these assertions.” Leela challenged you to cite actual evidence for statements like this several times, but you have yet to do so even once as far as I can tell, which is disappointing because at first it really seemed like you knew your stuff, but now it just appears to me that you only claim to know a lot about science and the best you can do is:

I had really been hoping that you’d follow your own advice: “if your wrist is good enough to type out an url or a book title please do so.”
-Joan

I want to thank you for this post. I ran into a similar problem with petey on another thread and thought maybe it was just me. But now I see that not only is his M.O. consistent, but that others - including Christians - can see the pattern. You summed it up very well. Thanks for taking the time and the interest.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Petey and Leela,

Petey:
As someone who’s relatively “new to their faith,” (I came into the light about five years ago), I’ve been reading these discussions with great interest. I was content to be a lurker, but this particular post compelled me to make a post of my own to say thanks, but I’m perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions and opinions when I read posts by the likes of Leela. Seems awfully arrogant and un-Christian of you to proclaim yourself the arbiter for us “unaware or gullible” newcomers.

I had been hoping that you would refute Leela’s statements by following your own advice and providing evidence to back up your claims, but as far as I can tell, your arguments consist mainly of telling Leela to “read a book,” or “google” something, while never citing any specific sources yourself to back up claims like, “modern science completely disposes of the reality of these assertions.” Leela challenged you to cite actual evidence for statements like this several times, but you have yet to do so even once as far as I can tell, which is disappointing because at first it really seemed like you knew your stuff, but now it just appears to me that you only claim to know a lot about science and the best you can do is:

I had really been hoping that you’d follow your own advice: “if your wrist is good enough to type out an url or a book title please do so.”

Leela:
But back to the topic at hand. Leela, does the concept of infinite time necessarily have to progress equally in both directions? Can’t time have a starting point or beginning and then progress infinitely from that point on? I believe it’s perfectly well within God’s ability to start a universe on an infinite path.

-Joan

thanks for your opinion but if you had been reading as you say then i suspect you would have seen all the proceeding arguments and have been aware of leelas problems with many other posters. and if you had been lurking you would also know she was given the answers. so what do i know about you so far?

1. you only now logged on to post in her defense, not when she was jumped on for plagiarism by the more prominent members of the board.
2. you have the same level of knowledge concerning these arguments as leela, or you would know that she was given the arguments she requested, she just didn’t know enough about the subject to realize it.
3. you have the same opinions as leela
4. you speak in the same cadence as leela

now what do i know about leela?

1. leela sees no wrong in plagiarism
2. leela has a history of proven plagiarism
3. leela has changed her her arguments completely since she was caught plagiarizing the other day.
4. leela has tried to advance an argument almost opposite of her previous position.

5.today i found that leela plagiarized her new argument from www.quatonics.com.

1. leelas has become increasingly desperate to find a way to avoid any debates, especially with me, as she cannot defend these theories she posts, as they aren’t actually her own work.
2. she knows i am determined to expose her as a serial plagiarist.

all of which, taken in combination lead me to believe that you are one of the following.

1. leela
2. a friend of leela, who posted something she sent you

i cant even say that was a nice try. it was clumsy and fumbling

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I want to thank you for this post. I ran into a similar problem with petey on another thread and thought maybe it was just me. But now I see that not only is his M.O. consistent, but that others - including Christians - can see the pattern. You summed it up very well. Thanks for taking the time and the interest.

funny that you should post, i can only believe that you are in cahoots with leela, otherwise you would have defended her to a number of other people who found her m.o. to be less than acceptable

want a little payback for having your arguments destroyed the other day?

if this keeps up i believe i could gather quite the metaphorical lynch mob.

all these posts are recorded, you wont get me kicked with this strategy,

but plagiarism is very bad form, serial plagiarism is extremely bad form.

and its very sad that your arguments are so weak as to have this attack as a strategy to win some contest.

if you cant beat them, get them banned

i think i will call that the IYCBTGTB strategy

have a nice day

 

[JDaniel]

Hi Petey and Leela,

Petey:
As someone who’s relatively “new to their faith,” (I came into the light about five years ago), I’ve been reading these discussions with great interest. I was content to be a lurker, but this particular post compelled me to make a post of my own to say thanks, but I’m perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions and opinions when I read posts by the likes of Leela. Seems awfully arrogant and un-Christian of you to proclaim yourself the arbiter for us “unaware or gullible” newcomers.

I had been hoping that you would refute Leela’s statements by following your own advice and providing evidence to back up your claims, but as far as I can tell, your arguments consist mainly of telling Leela to “read a book,” or “google” something, while never citing any specific sources yourself to back up claims like, “modern science completely disposes of the reality of these assertions.” Leela challenged you to cite actual evidence for statements like this several times, but you have yet to do so even once as far as I can tell, which is disappointing because at first it really seemed like you knew your stuff, but now it just appears to me that you only claim to know a lot about science and the best you can do is:

I had really been hoping that you’d follow your own advice: “if your wrist is good enough to type out an url or a book title please do so.”

Leela:
But back to the topic at hand. Leela, does the concept of infinite time necessarily have to progress equally in both directions? Can’t time have a starting point or beginning and then progress infinitely from that point on? I believe it’s perfectly well within God’s ability to start a universe on an infinite path.

-Joan

This is you, Leela, isn’t it? This is so convenient, to create a new handle that shows up at the precise time that a number of us who have been trying to have a decent debate with you and are vociferously begining to out you due to your agenda. I haven’t taken a side, as far as you and warped are concerned, but, now I must. You are single-handedly trying to kill ths forum. It is simply your complete agenda.

I know we should all just ignore you, but, you are good at getting into peoples’ faces and under their skins. I think I have outed you again as I find it hard to believe that even a newbie, who joined November 14th, would not have looked at other threads and seen the problem.

What you are doing is wrong, and it’s bad ethics. You pretend to want to know, to learn, to share, but, you incessantly wind up being nothing more than a spin artist. If you were really good we might not have found you out. I think I may leave the forums for a while and let the moderators figure this out.

I’ve been all over these forums, seen aggressive debates, some faily harsh, but, nothing like this. I am amazed. Plus, it’s amazing how quickly you learned how to cut and paste from original posts! It took me almost a week!

Now I will search for my ignore button.

JD

 

[Leela]

This is you, Leela, isn’t it? This is so convenient, to create a new handle that shows up at the precise time that a number of us who have been trying to have a decent debate with you and are vociferously begining to out you due to your agenda.

Hi JD,

No, Joan and I are not the same person. Frankly I have been amazed that no other Catholics have come out to call him on his poor behavior. I don’t suppose that there is any way that I will be able to prove this accusation false.

I haven’t taken a side, as far as you and warped are concerned, but, now I must. You are single-handedly trying to kill ths forum. It is simply your complete agenda.

That is not at all my agenda. Like everyone else, I hope to learn about other people’s points of view, have my point or view understood by others, try to convince people of mine, and perhaps be myself be convinced of something new.

I know we should all just ignore you, but, you are good at getting into peoples’ faces and under their skins. I think I have outed you again as I find it hard to believe that even a newbie, who joined November 14th, would not have looked at other threads and seen the problem.

What you are doing is wrong, and it’s bad ethics. You pretend to want to know, to learn, to share, but, you incessantly wind up being nothing more than a spin artist. If you were really good we might not have found you out. I think I may leave the forums for a while and let the moderators figure this out.

It is amazing to me that the moderators allow some of the mean-spirited name-calling and unfounded accusations on this forum. I am also at a point where I am considering leaving. I may try to find a forum where the Christians I would like to engage in debate behave in a more Christian fashion.

I’ve been all over these forums, seen aggressive debates, some faily harsh, but, nothing like this. I am amazed. Plus, it’s amazing how quickly you learned how to cut and paste from original posts! It took me almost a week!

Now I will search for my ignore button.

I just found out about it myself and immediately made use of it so I don’t have to read Petey’s posts anymore.

Best,
Leela