Is This World Just A Big Game Of Pretend?

[mymistake]

Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right.

Or... people are just tired of arguing bullshit with you.

 

But hey, the first thing that comes to your mind must be the right explanation, never anything else...

 

Like bullshit responses. Someone say something intelligent. Surely you know the analytical methods.

 

People have been saying intelligent things to you. It just makes you angry. Now if you are just saying you have a religion that is fine. If you are trying to turn your religion into a science that is the opposite of impressive.

[Guest end3]

Like bullshit responses. Someone say something intelligent. Surely you know the analytical methods.

And you're always right. In your whole life, you've never been wrong, so you can't be wrong in this either. Isn't that great? You're the "always right" man. Good for you.

 

Yeah, maybe if you have time, please look it up......on Wiki, they are both listed as internal standard method and external standard method. I use them daily in my laboratories.

If it's a real decent analogy, why wouldn't you consider it. Why would it be wrong if spirituality and the "facts" came from the same place?

[Guest end3]

Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right.

Or... people are just tired of arguing bullshit with you.

 

But hey, the first thing that comes to your mind must be the right explanation, never anything else...

 

Like bullshit responses. Someone say something intelligent. Surely you know the analytical methods.

 

People have been saying intelligent things to you. It just makes you angry. Now if you are just saying you have a religion that is fine. If you are trying to turn your religion into a science that is the opposite of impressive.

 

See, this is such an incredibly lame response. You can't even consider that science and religion not diametrically opposed. Are you sure? Truely amazing.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, maybe if you have time, please look it up......on Wiki, they are both listed as internal standard method and external standard method. I use them daily in my laboratories.

If it's a real decent analogy, why wouldn't you consider it. Why would it be wrong if spirituality and the "facts" came from the same place?

Because they point to many things instead of your thing.

[Guest end3]

Yeah, maybe if you have time, please look it up......on Wiki, they are both listed as internal standard method and external standard method. I use them daily in my laboratories.

If it's a real decent analogy, why wouldn't you consider it. Why would it be wrong if spirituality and the "facts" came from the same place?

Because they point to many things instead of your thing.

Yeah, I really expected more from you.

[mymistake]

See, this is such an incredibly lame response.

 

I don't see that at all. Would it have to reflect or agree with your religion to be "not lame"?

 

You can't even consider that science and religion not diametrically opposed. Are you sure? Truely amazing.

 

Then you did not understand. I find that religion and science do not have to be diametrically opposed. Now that I have corrected your mistake do you want to try again? The chip on your shoulder isn't helping.

[par4dcourse]

I expected more from me, too. Damn I'm disappointed.

[Guest end3]

I expected more from me, too. Damn I'm disappointed.

 

yeah, I can only imagine.

[mymistake]

Yeah, maybe if you have time, please look it up......on Wiki, they are both listed as internal standard method and external standard method. I use them daily in my laboratories.

If it's a real decent analogy, why wouldn't you consider it. Why would it be wrong if spirituality and the "facts" came from the same place?

Because they point to many things instead of your thing.

Yeah, I really expected more from you.

 

Do you know what the word "standard" means? When one scientist wants to measure a distance he doesn't take off his shoes and count how many times his own foot covers the distance. And when he wants to measure a time he doesn't just count on his own at his own pace. Scientists follow a standard. They go by the established length for meter and the established interval for second. They use instruments to measure to a specific degree of certainty. That is what standard means.

 

Now you are comparing that to Christians who can't even agree about what one must do in order to be saved, or who is a real Christian, or what communion means, or the right way to baptize, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds through rather than from. These are core issues that Christians can't standardize. Beyond those are all the little details on all the complexities of life that Christians can't agree about. And since each one believes that the all knowing boss of the universe have given them the one real true secrets they see Christians who don't agree with them as misguided so Christianity continues to fragment and splinter. And you add one of your invisible friends to the mix. What is the Holy Spirit's favorite color? You and the Holy Spirit are BFFs for life and yet you don't know the details. It turns out other Christians imagine them differently.

 

Is it our problem when you botch the usage of the word "standard"?

[Guest end3]

See, this is such an incredibly lame response.

 

I don't see that at all. Would it have to reflect or agree with your religion to be "not lame"?

 

You can't even consider that science and religion not diametrically opposed. Are you sure? Truely amazing.

 

Then you did not understand. I find that religion and science do not have to be diametrically opposed. Now that I have corrected your mistake do you want to try again? The chip on your shoulder isn't helping.

 

If you want to carry on a conversation, please go read the analytical methods I referenced and then compare them to God the Father as an external standard and the Holy Spirit as an internal standard. It mixes science and theology in a very unique match. If everyone here wants to deny and go ad hom, then that is status quo. After four years of putting up with this bullshit, learning the arguments, taking the abuse, the audacity of these peckerwoods to not consider what I have noticed is the pinnacle of what God is describing as prideful.

 

No guts, no glory. Now I have a little glory, and there is no one with guts.

[Guest end3]

Do you know what the word "standard" means? When one scientist wants to measure a distance he doesn't take off his shoes and count how many times his own foot covers the distance. And when he wants to measure a time he doesn't just count on his own at his own pace. Scientists follow a standard. They go by the established length for meter and the established interval for second. They use instruments to measure to a specific degree of certainty. That is what standard means.

Yeah, like primary standard grade, tech grade, NIST????? You are the one that is preaching without having a clue about standards. It's what I do for a living moron.

 

 

Now you are comparing that to Christians who can't even agree about what one must do in order to be saved, or who is a real Christian, or what communion means, or the right way to baptize, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds through rather than from. These are core issues that Christians can't standardize. Beyond those are all the little details on all the complexities of life that Christians can't agree about. And since each one believes that the all knowing boss of the universe have given them the one real true secrets they see Christians who don't agree with them as misguided so Christianity continues to fragment and splinter. And you add one of your invisible friends to the mix. What is the Holy Spirit's favorite color? You and the Holy Spirit are BFFs for life and yet you don't know the details. It turns out other Christians imagine them differently.

 

Is it our problem when you botch the usage of the word "standard"?

 

Dumb ass.

[Guest Valk0010]

I think I'm having a hard time with you mixing science, religion and metaphysics.

 

All I am saying is that in analytical chemistry, the "external standard method" is remarkably close to comparing ourselves to the OT Law or God in that you have a external known standard, moral in this case. And the same can be said about the "internal standard method" except that we compare ourselves to an internal standard, the Holy Spirit.

 

This really is more straight forward than the lignification example.

 

So what do you think.

Your like mixing elmers glue, paint and, soda and trying to make a point. It ain't working.

 

Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right. It's a slam dunk. And with all the knowledge here, there ain't many that understand analytical chemistry and that would have a clue what I am talking about.

 

Very interesting that today's most modern analytical methods match a 1700 year old book. I'm waiting for a real refutation.

I can't say I know much anything about chemistry, so retarded in math skills, I skipped it in high school. But the reason I suspect i am correct here, is this. Your more or less saying, by comparing chemistry to faith or divine regulation. That elmers glue is paint, and its also soda. Its totally different things. Chemistry is like elmers glue, its good for its one thing. But to say that justifies too entirely different ideas of thinking is a stretch, its making a circle into a square. Its sort of like non overlapping forms of understanding the world. They may be similar but to say one proves the rationality of another is a total stretch in logic and evidence. Chemistry is a posteriori and faith and definitely divine regulation is a priori. That is why I take objection to your argument here. Evidence says chemistry is the way it is. Faith can't by definition be the same way. You can do tests in chemistry. You can't test religious experience. See where I am going here? Faith and religion isn't a science experiment. Your going to have to make the conceptual demands of science and religion identical for your idea to work. You can't, there categorically different subjects.

[mymistake]

If you want to carry on a conversation, please go read the analytical methods I referenced and then compare them to God the Father as an external standard and the Holy Spirit as an internal standard.

 

Please see post #209.

 

It mixes science and theology in a very unique match. If everyone here wants to deny and go ad hom, then that is status quo.

 

I don't go ad hom.

 

After four years of putting up with this bullshit, learning the arguments, taking the abuse, the audacity of these peckerwoods to not consider what I have noticed is the pinnacle of what God is describing as prideful.

 

No guts, no glory. Now I have a little glory, and there is no one with guts.

 

God is describing something? Proof please. Prove that there is a God and that God is/has/was/did describe something.

[Guest end3]

If you want to carry on a conversation, please go read the analytical methods I referenced and then compare them to God the Father as an external standard and the Holy Spirit as an internal standard.

 

Please see post #209.

 

It mixes science and theology in a very unique match. If everyone here wants to deny and go ad hom, then that is status quo.

 

I don't go ad hom.

 

After four years of putting up with this bullshit, learning the arguments, taking the abuse, the audacity of these peckerwoods to not consider what I have noticed is the pinnacle of what God is describing as prideful.

 

No guts, no glory. Now I have a little glory, and there is no one with guts.

 

God is describing something? Proof please. Prove that there is a God and that God is/has/was/did describe something.

 

I'm gonna quit with you MM. I already made my 'proof' analogy, and you won't look it up nor try to understand it. Thanks

[Guest Valk0010]

Valk, the reason no one is making much of an issue with this post is they know I'm right.

Or... people are just tired of arguing bullshit with you.

 

But hey, the first thing that comes to your mind must be the right explanation, never anything else...

 

Like bullshit responses. Someone say something intelligent. Surely you know the analytical methods.

 

People have been saying intelligent things to you. It just makes you angry. Now if you are just saying you have a religion that is fine. If you are trying to turn your religion into a science that is the opposite of impressive.

 

See, this is such an incredibly lame response. You can't even consider that science and religion not diametrically opposed. Are you sure? Truely amazing.

There is a difference between being diametrical opposed, one in the same, or just different. I am of the view one is better then the other in regards to what is fact. But I don't see the scientific method, providing a meaning of life anytime soon.

[mymistake]

Do you know what the word "standard" means? When one scientist wants to measure a distance he doesn't take off his shoes and count how many times his own foot covers the distance. And when he wants to measure a time he doesn't just count on his own at his own pace. Scientists follow a standard. They go by the established length for meter and the established interval for second. They use instruments to measure to a specific degree of certainty. That is what standard means.

Yeah, like primary standard grade, tech grade, NIST?????

 

I'm not familiar with the acronym NITS. Care to fill me in?

 

You are the one that is preaching without having a clue about standards. It's what I do for a living moron.

 

I didn't realize I was preaching anything. Feel free to correct my error(s) regarding how scientists measure. If you are a scientist for a living (Why does this sound so familiar?) then why do you have a problem with my comment?

 

Now you are comparing that to Christians who can't even agree about what one must do in order to be saved, or who is a real Christian, or what communion means, or the right way to baptize, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds through rather than from. These are core issues that Christians can't standardize. Beyond those are all the little details on all the complexities of life that Christians can't agree about. And since each one believes that the all knowing boss of the universe have given them the one real true secrets they see Christians who don't agree with them as misguided so Christianity continues to fragment and splinter. And you add one of your invisible friends to the mix. What is the Holy Spirit's favorite color? You and the Holy Spirit are BFFs for life and yet you don't know the details. It turns out other Christians imagine them differently.

 

Is it our problem when you botch the usage of the word "standard"?

 

Dumb ass.

 

Feel free to point out any errors I made. Or are you just angry because my point is valid while yours is wrong?

[mymistake]

. . . nor try to understand it.

 

You are a filthy, dirty liar.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, I really expected more from you.

I have more important (and real) things than to deal with than your imaginary things.

[Guest end3]

I'm not familiar with the acronym NITS. Care to fill me in?

 

You told me in many posts I had no understanding of the scientific method etc. and that you did, and now you're asking me about NIST?

 

 

I didn't realize I was preaching anything. Feel free to correct my error(s) regarding how scientists measure. If you are a scientist for a living (Why does this sound so familiar?) then why do you have a problem with my comment?

Because your explanations are wrong. They show that you have no clue what you are trying to pull off as knowledge.

 

 

 

Feel free to point out any errors I made. Or are you just angry because my point is valid while yours is wrong?

I'm angry at the arrogance passed off as intelligence and condescension.

[mymistake]

You told me in many posts I had no understanding of the scientific method etc. and that you did, and now you're asking me about NIST?

 

Okay I found it on google. I couldn't tell from the context of your original usage what you meant by it. Was there something wrong with me asking?

 

Because your explanations are wrong.

 

Feel free to show me how and why. Please do not lie about me not being interested when I have invested this much time into finding out.

 

 

They show that you have no clue what you are trying to pull off as knowledge.

 

I'm listening.

[mymistake]

The internal standard method supports Christianity and reality in many ways....

 

Eh? Just when I thought you made a breakthrough you assert this.

 

The Holy Spirit being internal vs. the external Law

Internal standards are like the analyte but not exacty the analyte (we are created in God's image)

An external standard (the world) being unpure.

Diet....you are what you eat.

 

So the question is, how do you account for reality giving you the purity, the example, needed for a standard way of life?

 

What do you mean by "the purity, the example"?

 

 

When I measure something or quantify it, there has to be a standard to measure against, or compare to. So with an external standard, you calibrate the instrument(s) with a standard of known purity/certified purity....typically NIST.(National Institute for Standards and Technology) Standards have to be adjusted for various things. They are not always 100% pure. So if I am calibrating with a known standard, I might have to dry it first to compensate for the water content, or would multiply/compensate for synthesis impurities. So I would weigh an amount and multiply by .99 if it was purchased as 99% pure when it comes to my lab.

 

So with Christianity, or life, (or analytical chemistry), you are relying on a model, or standard to measure by. A human father or God would represent the external standard in this case, God being considered 100% pure and a human father, although created/synthesized in the image of God, being less pure.

 

Edit: Same goes with analytical masses. You purchase them, but you darn sure don't want to touch them so they will remain "unblemished" . They are used to calibrate analytical balances. And you can buy different class weights to calibrate with.

 

Is this the thing you wanted me to comment on? I'm just guessing because you didn't give me much to go on. I see you did define NIST earlier today.

 

Prove there is a God. Prove this God is 100% pure and define what that means. If two human fathers were standing side by side and one was 90% pure God and the other was only 10% pure God how would we measure the difference?

 

You see there is your God and Thumby's God. They are not the same God. Sure you and she agree on many of the basics. But if you didn't have any "enemies of God" to beat up on then eventually you and Thumby would turn on each other the way Christians historically have turned on each other. Christianity doesn't have a standard. It has an authority which is human in origin and completely subjective. There is no standard God. There is no standard Holy Spirit. We can't even find a standard God in the Bible because the Bible authors contradicted each other. They didn't have a standard God.

[Guest end3]

Okay I found it on google. I couldn't tell from the context of your original usage what you meant by it. Was there something wrong with me asking?

Nope, and I appreciate you looking. To my knowledge, quality analytical work, the standards can be traced back to some original standard. I don't know the specifics, but take a weight for example, there is one weight that is the standard, and everything is then calibrated from that one weight.....so most analytical standards are sold as traceable.

 

So if you move it over to a moral "measurement", then this is what I am describing. The Primary Standard would be God in this case.

 

So lets take the example of an external standard. Per the type of detector, you get a response from a known traceable standard. Suppose I inject 1 microliter of methane into a gas chromatograph. The response from the detector, a TCD in this case, is represented by a plotted curve. The quantification comes from integrating the area under the curve. So if I have a response of 100 area units for 1 microliter of methane, then when I inject the same microliter of an unknown gas, and my area count is 60, then I can quantify the unknown based on the area relative to the standard. This would be an example of an external standard.

 

Per my analogy, this would be like comparing the moralityof men to the OT standard, the Law.

 

So let's take the example of an internal standard. It's a compound much like the thing you are trying to measure.....i.e. behaves the same, but is not the actual thing. You typically mix the two in one solution before injecting into an instrument. You hold the amount of internal standard very constant and rely on that to assess the assay of your analyte, the thing measured. So you see that it is very much like the Holy Spirit not external to us as the law was, but now we have the standard, God, mixed internally, in our hearts with us, and stays with us as a tool for moral comparison or "quantification". What you see are two peaks that elute nearly at the same retention times and the area integration method is the same.

 

So it fits also with one being created in the image of the other......the analyte and the standard being analogous.

 

Thanks for listening, I have new respect for you.

[Guest Valk0010]

But end, something can be a priori true and a posterori true. Chemistry is a example of that. Religion isn't. That is a problem with your arguement. It may logically work, but there are plenty of untrue things that work perfectly from a logical standpoint. Marxism comes to mind. Its apriori true, but its a posterori false. Religion is the same way, it can (though I don't think it is) be a priori true, but its very definitely a posterori false. You will have to explain that difference. And truthfully just having something be logical, doesn't have much weight. It has to have evidence.

[Guest end3]

But end, something can be a priori true and a posterori true. Chemistry is a example of that. Religion isn't. That is a problem with your arguement. It may logically work, but there are plenty of untrue things that work perfectly from a logical standpoint. Marxism comes to mind. Its apriori true, but its a posterori false. Religion is the same way, it can (though I don't think it is) be a priori true, but its very definitely a posterori false. You will have to explain that difference. And truthfully just having something be logical, doesn't have much weight. It has to have evidence.

 

I don't think we can really say that religion isn't Valk, IMO, as I don't see we possess the tools to measure/quantify morality. Our interpretation of the standard or the results is only by faith without those tools. I find it very interesting that the methodologies are the same and use THIS as evidence.

[Guest Valk0010]

But end, something can be a priori true and a posterori true. Chemistry is a example of that. Religion isn't. That is a problem with your arguement. It may logically work, but there are plenty of untrue things that work perfectly from a logical standpoint. Marxism comes to mind. Its apriori true, but its a posterori false. Religion is the same way, it can (though I don't think it is) be a priori true, but its very definitely a posterori false. You will have to explain that difference. And truthfully just having something be logical, doesn't have much weight. It has to have evidence.

 

I don't think we can really say that religion isn't Valk, IMO, as I don't see we possess the tools to measure/quantify morality. Our interpretation of the standard or the results is only by faith without those tools. I find it very interesting that the methodologies are the same and use THIS as evidence.

I am thinking of the whole soup and nuts to me, if you say religion, aren't you also saying things like proof of things like the resurrection of jesus. If we are just talking about ethics, then why need your argument, just prove your version of morality is the best. But religion makes more claims then just ethical superiority. For example your arguement only works if you assume christianity is true to begin. Its more or less a form of presuppositional apologetics. When I could use your exact same arguement for a blank theistic god, and make my own relgion out of it. You just simply haven't done anything then supposedly provide a rationality for christianity, but you haven't proved Christianity. That is one of the main reasons your arguement is bad. It IS ACTUALLY not similar. There is forms of evidence in chemistry. There isn't evidence of Christianity.

 

Well I am not sure I agree with you on the method, part mostly because I see nothing in Christianity adhering to the scientific method. Its just god masturbating mostly. But that is more of a philosophical consideration then a scientific one. Another thing is, your argument depends on your view of Christianity being the correct one.