I don’t want to get too off-topic, but I think the problem here is that you think we inherit somebody’s sin. While the terminology is admittedly confusing, what we’re really inheriting is the fallen state of man caused by that sin.
Ignatius:
“there was too much for one person to do”
* S:person (a human body (usually including the clothing)) “a weapon was hidden on his person”
I highlighted the pertinent entry for you to make it easier to see. A thorough reading of reveals that a person is an individual, someone, mortal, or sole. An extraterrestrial would be a mortal and spiritual beings are souls.
- S:
Some clarity can be gained from a more thorough analysis using multiple sources such as the Webster dictionary.
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor’s mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century
1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing
5 : the personality of a human being : self
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
— per·son·hood -ˌhu̇d\ noun
*As can be clearly seen, a human being is only one of the possible definitions of a person. I hope this helps illuminate and clarify your misconceptions on the subject.
“there was too much for one person to do”Key: “S:” = Show Synset (semantic) relations, “W:” = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun
* S:
* S:
* S:
You sir, are a liar and a rogue…
I’m sorry that you misunderstood. Actually, the parenthetical is not part of the definition. The person, individual, … mortal, **soul **are more to the point.
I have again highlighted the pertinent entry for you to make it easier for you to see. A thorough reading of reveals that a person is an individual, someone, mortal, or sole. An extraterrestrial would be a mortal and spiritual beings are souls.
You’ll gain some insight by using additional references to help filter out your misconceptions as to the definition. I recomment Webster’s dictionary as well as others.
As can be clearly seen, a human being is only one of the possible definitions of a person. Again, I hope this helps illuminate and clarify your misconceptions on the subject.
Also, my dear brother, please do not reply with ad hominim attacks, an ad hominem attack detracts from your credibility as it commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince another.
One of the things that convinced me of the falsehood of atheism was that in my years as an atheist I used to see all of the arguments from the atheist side eventually degrade into this type of sniping and it occured to me that those doing that were not concerned about discovering the Truth, but about defending their pre-conceived athiestic beliefs.
May God watch over you and grant you every blessing.
Your brother in Christ.
I read some of your posts on that other thread.
Moonstruck888;6684079:
, **soul **are more to the point.Ignatius:
I have again highlighted the pertinent entry for you to make it easier for you to see. A thorough reading of reveals that a person is an individual, someone, mortal, or sole. An extraterrestrial would be a mortal and spiritual beings are souls.
You’ll gain some insight by using additional references to help filter out your misconceptions as to the definition. I recomment Webster’s dictionary as well as others.
As can be clearly seen, a human being is only one of the possible definitions of a person. Again, I hope this helps illuminate and clarify your misconceptions on the subject.
Also, my dear brother, please do not reply with ad hominim attacks, an ad hominem attack detracts from your credibility as it commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince another.
One of the things that convinced me of the falsehood of atheism was that in my years as an atheist I used to see all of the arguments from the atheist side eventually degrade into this type of sniping and it occured to me that those doing that were not concerned about discovering the Truth, but about defending their pre-conceived athiestic beliefs.
May God watch over you and grant you every blessing.
Your brother in Christ.
I am not interested in how you define a person, nor how you rationalize God. I want you to show me an observation that can be tested by a repeatable experiment to demonstrate God’s existence in a quantitative way.
Not really. They haven’t changed much at all… After several thousand years, people still can’t drag their minds away from the apron strings of fake parent figures.
You sound like a person who would be suicidal not because of depression, but of curiosity lol
Since it has been made clear to me by several people on this forum that we’re playing prison rules, unwarranted attacks on what they believe my career to be, uncharitable and caustic remarks on my personality, I’m afraid it’s gone beyond playing nice now.Moonstruck, you have said that you do not intend to mock us or our beliefs, and in good faith I have taken your word for it. Words like this, though, express the opposite. One does not suggest that a “sick idiot” must have come up with a belief that one is not inherently mocking as stupid or bad. You have used other phrasing and sarcasm similarly confrontational, and it is exactly the sort of thing that rightly causes people who hold our beliefs to take your posts personally. Please watch yourself on this sort of behavior, if your intentions are sincere and you honestly don’t want to come across as mocking people and/or their beliefs. Thank you.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
And you sound like a pontificating, overweening, prancing loon.
wooooooooah settle. I was just saying that because you want observable data of God. No one on this forum can give it to you, there is no need to continue the debate.
Taking a couple of physics courses and/or self educating in the subject does not make you a physicist. What you claimed is nothing more than an egregious example of self promotion especially when done to add additional credibility within a debate.
Obviously you miss the point rather badly; the 3 (actually 2 days+1/2 hour) days refer to the time that transpired from your entry into this forum (5/10/10) and your implied claim of being a physicist(5/10/100). Now do you get it; IT’S SARCASM?
You brought up the apparently faux career positions in your posts; all I did was point them out as a self-serving attempt to add credibility to your arguments. After all a physicist has more credibility than a technician when pontificating about physics, especially when the technician makes a completely false statement about the creation of matter. As far as your comments re: my line of attach: thank you, I obviously have been successful in engaging you in the tenor you set in this thread by your rejection of discourse.
I don’t know what kind of physics they teach in Scotland, but it sure is different than the physics I learned.
Come on Moonstruck, you must know that the creation of the particle/antiparticle couplet was predicted by Paul Dirac’s equation, but the couplet creation can only occur within the constraints of the uncertainty principle, which means the couplet disappears almost as soon as it appears. It couldn’t possibly be the reason for the creation of matter. There is no consensus hypothesis for matter creation or for the asymmetry of particles over antiparticles (baryogenesis) let alone one having to do with angular momentum.
I am quite familiar with the extended version of Einstein’s equation and I know that he derived it by substitution of relativistic mass into the classical formula for kinetic energy, but in no way does it relate angular momentum to the creation of matter, which is the point of your claim. That “p” in your formula AIN’T angular momentum!
Some advice: If you truly are interested in other person’s ideas, for example an answer to the question, What is God?” then try to enter into a discourse rather than creating a twaddle of bullet points. I offered you an opportunity for discourse; you for whatever reason were not up to the challenge, you preferred the twaddle and I have realized, finally, that this forum is not set up for discourse, which is alright with me; it is I that is out of place. So have fun with your twaddle; you should be a very popular respondent.
I have a degree in a physics related subject. As far as my work goes, I have no intention of discussing that with you, you’ll only come back and tell me, in the absence of evidence, that you do something far grander.
The lowest form of wit. I can see why you enjoy it.
I brought up my career because my credentials were questioned, that I am “a mere Scotch technician”.
Well now that’s fascinating. You mean to say you’ve actually learned something? The evidence for you having any education is even thinner than the evidence for God.
If I earn a million dollars this year, and spend a million dollars, my net income is zero. Does the money have no effect?
Wrong again dumpling head. My goodness, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If it turns out that the Higgs field is responsible, the Higgs boson will be bound by the law of conservation of momentum.
Not always. Some matter antimatter couplets are sustained, accroding to current theory with an infinitecimal bias towards matter. That is why matter exists.
Actually, there is. Protons have a half life. So do anti protons. If that half life differed even fractionally, there would be a bias.
The p is momentum. I never said it was angular. The conservation law still applies to momentum.
Would you rather I posted enough twaddle to fill the pages of War and Peace the way you do? I lost interest in what you and the other people on this thread had to say the minute it became obvious that I wasn’t going to get a straight answer.
I wasn’t up to the challenge? I have absoutely no interst in discourse with you. I think you’re utterings are absolutely moronic and I think you’re a vulgar prig.
And with that, I think you reveal your true level of intellectual discourse and I can no longer compete on your level of twaddle. You are the master; for God’s sake you are so good at twaddle you got me doing it. I do believe however that I haven’t attacked you personally; I may have tweaked you nose a couple of times but it was more in the line of humor than the invective you have dumped on me: vulgar, priggish snobbery, absolutely distasteful, contemptible, philosophical drivel, moronic, vulgar prig, dumpling head, ill mannered. Well if the verbiage you associate with me is an example of Scottish manners, then your calling me ill mannered would be a complement. It was nice of you to mention one of my redeemimg features. Call me some more names
You joined on 5/10/10 and listed “technician” as your occupation
Why do you think it’s impossible to be a technician and have a degree in the field of physics?
You do not know what academic qualifications I have. Nor do you know what I do for a living. As a matter of fact, I switched careers around eight years ago. I am a technician and I do have a degree. I don’t understand why this is a problem for you? I’m not claiming to have cured cancer or flown to the Moon, I am simply claiming that I studied physics and biology, and in neither class did the word “God” ever come up.
I’m sure your Cacouacs observation was rapier like in it’s ascerbic precision, but since I’ve never heard the word before in my life and don’t consider any more of your invective important enough to look up, I’m afraid it’s lost on me.
What is God - as a question is in the subject of METAPHYSICS and, in part THEOLOGY your scrip, real or unreal is hardly relevent to this field, as essentially metaphysics means BEYOND PHYSICS - trying to apply a “scientific method” to areas by nature “beyond” science is absurd
Yeah, a state imposed by god. Immoral.
Well, you see, I don’t believe that there are any areas beyond science except in the realms of fiction.What is God - as a question is in the subject of METAPHYSICS and, in part THEOLOGY your scrip, real or unreal is hardly relevent to this field, as essentially metaphysics means BEYOND PHYSICS - trying to apply a “scientific method” to areas by nature “beyond” science is absurd
And your belief make it true? Not.
What does this have to do with the OP?
