You may be surprised by this but science teaches every cause has an effect.

This is cyclic existence. A Cause leading to an effect of a cause leading to effect, such as the snake swallowing its own tail, or continual rebirth. I sometimes imagine it as the eternal Waltz of mankind or infinite, incomprehensiable, possibility.

However, I digress. This, for the ancients, is rarely new knowledge. The Chinese, some of the oldest thinkers in history that predate Christ, stated how there is two forms of energy, giving and receiving forces. This is basically the same as scientific 'cause and effect'. However, the difference is such things vibrate throughout time.

This is another concept that science will teach you. Life, surprisingly, is made of vibrations. Vibrations of sound, light, energy. Yet, this is not new, surprisingly, this was already recorded in Hebrew some 4000 years or less I forget...before Christ.

The Israelites used to relate this 'concept', to the neck of the human calling it the soul. This, as many other conceptions related to the body, transcended the Universe. So, again, science came some 6000 years later with the same belief the Jewish already knew and had a much deeper understanding of because they said a whole lot more than science is teaching today about the vibrations of life.

Even in the Bible it shows the Lord working with the Israelites using vibrations to win wars.

Think how one single decision you make will cause a vibration to echo throughout time for all eternity. One decision alone can change your entire life in a split second. It can make or break you at any one time.

Now do you feel the weight of existence? How do you know what you choose will be the right choice and will lead to treasures in Heaven? This, treasures in Heaven, being a metaphor for, what Opheil would call, a result.

This is where philosophy, or the Bible, or religion, faith, spirituality, comes in - not science. To control the vibrations of time, or basically how you live your life, leading it through God by doing His will, or the will of what is righteous and just and you will not fail and you will get that result where ever the Lord may take you.


Regards,

Silvine


God bless.

I dont believe in the lord, I believe in string theory & quantum mechanics.

How's the pancreas?

I'll look further into this, but in the meantime, let me just point out:


Cause and effect is linear, not cyclic. The analogy of a snake swallowing its own tail is flawed; cause and effect is more analogous to an infinite number of snakes, each being eaten by the one behind it and eating the one in front. Or you could ditch the analogy right off.

Effect follows cause. Effect may cause another effect. That's the key word here: "another". The two effects are not necessarily the same, and neither are the causes, therefore it is erroneous to describe this as cyclic. A puppy grows into a bitch and has puppies of her own, but the puppy she was is not the puppies she later has. One puppy is not all puppies that ever will be.

EDIT: Having glanced over the rest of what you've said, I think you've misread me (if this thread was made in response to what I think it was). I have said that philosophy without grounding in science is valueless. Now, I see what you mean: the Chinese were using a combination of imagination and intuition to arrive at their conclusions. However, the science to prove or disprove what they were saying had not been discovered. So they were not speaking in conflict with science as it stood at the time. That's the difference, to me at least, between (for example) using the Bible to work out the age of the Earth in the 1700s and doing it now. It was legitimate to assume that the world was only that old when we had no evidence that it wasn't.

Philosophy comes from observation of the world based on what is known of it. Marcus Arelius has us ask of each thing "what is it in itself?" He demands that we observe, and glean all we can, before we begin to speculate. Philosophy was a serious business back then. People didn't get away with ignoring what was already apparent.

I am telling you that nothing can happen in conflict with science/nature, only with what we know of it. To say otherwise is to misdefine nature/science. We used to divide science/nature into three disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics. Now we know that they are all one and the same. Imagine a scientist stating otherwise now. Dividing the sciences made sense when we knew little of what we were dealing with, but the more we learn, the less sense it makes to separate them. Think of the three blind men describing an elephant, maybe.

Kant did a better job of illustrating this than the Lord has ever done. Yet his suggestions that every action must be examined have far more in common with Arelius than with your rants against science.

You still are making a personal arguement such as 'I said she said'. This really is not productive as I merely present factual information.

Perhaps this is a failure on my part to make clear to you in terms you can understand the information I am presenting to you but I really can not make it any easier for you to understand.

From what I gather you are concerned about the place of science in this forum. As I stated, this is not the science forum but philosophy and spirituality forum. The forum subjects are quite clear.

You are basically like the atheist in a Catholic forum...on the edge of being labelled a troll regardless of how educated an arguement you presen because simply communities form out of shared interest, not conflict.

The only reason I made this thread was because I thought you are considering worshipping the Lord yet are completely ignorant of any form of religious belief or practice.

Yet, your reply seems more concerned with yourself and your 'position' in a prior debate of ours rather than taking the information on board regarding Religion.

I always feel you expected so much more and you are disappointed in what we have to say. This stems from a problem within you rather than without you.

Also, you really fail to see the woods for the trees in the information I am presenting, I ask you; are you taking the piss?