Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't have any forensic scientists.

And don't forget to thank me profusely for expanding your horizons on science -- the very subject which you pride yourself as being king of all knowledge. You learned from me that there is such a thing as "forensic science".

I see therefore when I read you claiming such nonsense as

No, forensic scientists claim the earth is billions of years old. Just because they wear white coats and work in a lab or in he field doesn't mean they draw logical conclusions -- or even make logical premises.

I should distrust you. The Law of Universally distrusting a fool is alive and well!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For a thing to be a law (or principle) at minimum it only needs to be an underlying faculty or endowment of human nature, eg. greed, curiosity, distrust etc. That's number one.

Another unhinged speculation.
A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. ... In order to be a scientific law, a statement must describe some aspect of the universe and be based on repeated experimental evidence.If a phenomena cannot be repeated under the same observable circumstances, it is not a scientific Law.

If someone does not steal your pants when you are not looking one day, and does the next day, it is neither universal nor a law.

Number two, it is universal in scope because everyone on the planet old enough to understand what lying is has lied and has been lied to. This lying is the underlying (good pun intended) reason behind the distrust. Therefore, this is a comprehensive and fundamental law that is global in scale.

YOU JUST MOVED THE GOALPOSTS. Now "universal" has become an age and comprehension issue. So if the law of gravity only works if you are 5 years old or older, it somehow is still universal?

Quit ducking the tough questions.

You are proven wrong over and over again by almost everyone, and also proven very dumb, not being able to think clearly, and you blame me, and everyone else

I am tempted to put you on ignore again. But you are too funny too miss your clumsy insanity.

[hcap]

Hey box, You are also forgetting the "observer effect" in your idiotic law. It may be you yourself change how you perceive your ridiculous law.

Originally Posted by hcap

When a man greets another in the state of distrust, and concludes "distrust" is universal, he manages to self fulfill his subjective reality as the objective reality.

It is safe to say you invoke distrust in others with your hostile and disparaging and insulting posts.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Another unhinged speculation.
A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. ... In order to be a scientific law, a statement must describe some aspect of the universe and be based on repeated experimental evidence.If a phenomena cannot be repeated under the same observable circumstances, it is not a scientific Law.

Blah, blah, blah blah. More UNHINGED nonsense from you.

First of all a "law" can mean a principle. You're so hopelessly earth-bound in your godless world view, you can never extricate your head from the sand long enough to see anything else in LIFE!

If you can come up for air long enough to find a thesaurus, plug in the term "principle" and you'll come up with something along these lines:

Main Entryrinciple
Function:noun

1 a comprehensive and fundamental rule, doctrine, or assumption *the principle of free speech*
Synonyms axiom, fundamental, LAW, principium, theorem
Related Word basis, foundation, ground; canon, precept, rule; convention, form, usage
2 principles plural
Synonyms ETHIC3
3 principles plural
Synonyms ALPHABET 2, ABC's, elements, fundamentals, grammar, rudiments (emphasis mine)

If someone does not steal your pants when you are not looking one day, and does the next day, it is neither universal nor a law.

YOU JUST MOVED THE GOALPOSTS. Now "universal" has become an age and comprehension issue. So if the law of gravity only works if you are 5 years old or older, it somehow is still universal?[/quote]

We're not talking science! The actual definition of "principle" (or by extension its synonym "law" is this from the M-W Collegiate:

1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles *a man of principle* c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2 : a primary source : ORIGIN
3 a : an underlying faculty or endowment *such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity* b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
4 capitalized , Christian Science : a divine principle : GOD
–in principle : with respect to fundamentals *prepared to accept the proposition in principle*
usage Although nearly every handbook and many dictionaries warn against confusing principle and principal, many people still do. Principle is only a noun; principal is both (emphases mine)

I have always defined the Law of Distrust as being this:

This law states that all men are presumed to be untrustworthy unless they are known, or if unknown they can prove otherwise. Stated differently, all men are presumed guilty of distrustfulness until they can prove otherwise.

So, take your absurd stolen pants analogy and stick the pants over your head, because you're obviously so mentally deficient you would never figure out where you're supposed to wear them.

You are proven wrong over and over again by almost everyone, and also proven very dumb, not being able to think clearly, and you blame me, and everyone else

I am tempted to put you on ignore again. But you are too funny too miss your clumsy insanity.

You should be the last one to call anyone on this entire forum dumb! (You even make Actor and Mostie shine like bright lights next to you!) make This stupid post of yours rivals the last one which is a keeper to remind everyone of just how cognitively deficient and incoherent you truly are. You truly are the quintessential example of what an emperor without any clothes looks like!

And if this weren't enough, you're also a coward! You still haven't answered my two questions about your kids growing up and now your grandkids: Did you teach your kids, when growing up, to trust everyone they met? Or do your grown kids now teach their kids to trust everyone they meet?

And you also haven't answered my questions about lying: Have you ever told a lie in your life or have you ever been lied to by someone?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey box, You are also forgetting the "observer effect" in your idiotic law. It may be you yourself change how you perceive your ridiculous law.
It is safe to say you invoke distrust in others with your hostile and disparaging and insulting posts.

You also forget what empirical evidence is. You see...when the IRS, as but one example, requires that you prove the numbers on your return with all kinds of supporting documents, then the only logical inference that can be made is that because you don't have a personal relationship with this tax revenue enforcement agency, they do not trust you. They are operating under the presumption that you are a liar, cheat or fraud -- until you can prove otherwise.

How's that for your inane "observer effect"?

And before you tell me again what I'm "forgetting" -- Don't forget to answer my four questions relative to this specific topic?

[hcap]

I'm not going point for point with you. Suffice it to say. I posted the definition of a scientific law and you posted a dictionary definition claiming your own law of universal distrust now should be the boxcarian "principle of universal distrust"

Is that an honest response?

Then you totally forgot YOU MADE "universal" conditional on "being old enough to understand what lying is." Moving your goal posts from universal to "only if they"

Nor am I the dumb one. I invalidated your entire ridiculous argument.

No more on your new "principle", and evasiveness for me

Now what about "forensic" scientists malarkey Sherlock?
Are they "forensic" by law or principle?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I'm not going point for point for you. Suffice it to say. I posted the definition of a scientific law and you posted a dictionary definition claiming your own law of universal distrust now should be the boxcarian "principle of universal distrust"

Is that an honest response"

Then you totally forgot YOU MADE "universal" conditional on "being old enough to understand what lying is." Moving your goal posts from universal to "only if they"

Nor am I the dumb one. I invalidated your entire ridiculous argument.

No more on your new "principle", and evasiveness for me

Now what about "forensic" scientists malarkey Sherlock?
Are they "forensic" by law or principle?

Before your little kiddies were old enough to know good from evil, did you teach them that it was okay to trust everyone they meet? Since you, as a parent, would be acting as their proxy until they attain to the proper age to make such decisions for themselves, then the law is universal. You would actually be teaching them to presume that strangers should not be trusted.

And there's no such thing as a my "new principle". I can't help it if your ignorant of the English language. Law and Principle are synonymous terms.

The only thing you have invalidated around here is that you have any real knowledge of how the world (i.e. world system, a/k/a LIFE) works! You have invalidated your own credibility!

One final thing: The Law of Distrust is a universal principle because you, Actor, Thask, Light-in-the-Loafers, Hank, ShowMe, Doc, Replay and yours truly, and every single person on this entire forum, in this nation and indeed in the entire world have lied in our lifetime AND have been lied to by others; and those not old enough to understand what lying is will invariably grow up to become liars to one degree or another. Therefore, the Law of Distrust is indeed universal in scope because lying, in any of its forms, is the underlying cause for distrust or.

Have you noticed, Mr. Hcap, that no one has come forward to deny that they have lied or that they have been the victim of someone else's lies? Not even you. How's that for unanimous?

And if you did come forward and tell us that you have never lied, I'd bet my bottom dollar no one would believe you.

Heck...you can't even come forward to tell us that you have never taught your kids anything about trusting or distrusting strangers.

[hcap]

I sdaid I was thru with your principle. However now you are mixing original sin with your principle.

Now I suppose we are going to hear science has proved O.S. and your "evil gene" theory.



Why aren't you discussing "forensic scientists" I expected an apologetic treatise.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I sdaid I was thru with your principle. However now you are mixing original sin with your principle.

Now I suppose we are going to hear science has proved O.S. and your "evil gene" theory.

Why aren't you discussing "forensic scientists" I expected an apologetic treatise.

I'm not mixing anything. There must be a rational reason for all this distrust. And lying deceitfulness is it. Truthfulness certainly wouldn't be.

And why would I want to discuss anything with someone who is as dishonest, disingenuous and duplicitous as you are?

But thanks for playing. And be assured I take your silence on all the questions you have not answered as you tacit admission that you know I'm right.

[hcap]

Oh brother!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Oh brother!

You need more than a mere sound byte of biblical theology. You need to be drowned in it...and even then, apart from the power of God, you would not a believe a scintilla of scripture or Natural Revelation which is the mirror image of Divine Revelation.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You need more than a mere sound byte of biblical theology. You need to be drowned in it...and even then, apart from the power of God, you would not a believe a scintilla of scripture or Natural Revelation which is the mirror image of Divine Revelation.

I keep telling you to go back to school and take Natural Revelation101.

That would include all the subjects you think you know already.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I keep telling you to go back to school and take Natural Revelation101.

That would include all the subjects you think you know already.

I know how life works. How the world system works. How reality as we all know it works, in spite of hard-core deniers like yourself.. And it works just as the bible predicts. And this also means I know why the world works as it does.

This knowledge puts me two giant steps ahead of you...always. There's only one way you can catch up to me, but you refuse to see your need for salvation. And this ensures you'll always eat my dust.

Have a nice night, Humpty.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And before you tell me again what I'm "forgetting" -- Don't forget to answer my four questions relative to this specific topic?

Speaking of what you are forgetting I don't remember reading your response to my #7848.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I know how life works. How the world system works. How reality as we all know it works, ...

Oh, good. Please explain the red shift in distant galaxies.