You are here: Home > Message Board > NEW General Talk > Letter to the Elves
December 11 2017 11.14am

Letter to the Elves

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 5 ę First< 1 2 3 4 5

 

View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 09 Dec 17 9.27am Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Technically, its theology, rather than philosophy. Although theology can be informed from philosophy, theology forms the basis of church and religion, rather than philosophy.

Please donít put words into my mouth

I meant philosophy. Maybe you donít know much about Churches.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View chateauferret's Profile chateauferret Online Flag Airdrie 09 Dec 17 11.14am Send a Private Message to chateauferret Add chateauferret as a friend

Originally posted by Park Road

I never said it did. Science also can't disprove the existence of Santa clause,toothfaries, elves etc..doesn't mean they exist. As for elements being heavier etc..are you saying this proves or that it is even possible a creator exists.
I would say no its not evidence and to quote hitchings : What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Who created the Creator?

Edited by Park Road (08 Dec 2017 4.31am)

Edited by Park Road (08 Dec 2017 5.25am)

Fortunately I don't have to justify my faoth to you or anyone else. If you can look at the greatnrss of creation and not be moved by it, then bully for you.

Science disproves the rxistence of all of the above by providing alternative explanations which are readily demonstrable. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a Creator without explaining in some detail the Big Bang, which is nor possible with current science and may not be possible at all. Arguabky you could invoke Occam's Razor and say that pigs might fly, but the Universe is not only wierder than we imagine; it is wierder than we can imagine.

Christians believe that God is "the creator of all things visible and invisible, ... by whom all things were made". God is then the only thing that was neither begotten nor created. Science has a problem with things that can't be explained but there will akways be things that can't be ecplained, whether we like that or not.

Christians do not believe that God is some sort of sky fairy or old gent with a beard or any of the other ridiculous images that are conjured up to belittle Him. God is by definition beyond the understanding of man. That does not prove that He is the answer to everything that science can't explain, even if you accept that some things will never be reveaked to us; nor does it prove that He even exists. But it does show that there is such a thing as belief based solely on faith.


Edited by chateauferret (09 Dec 2017 11.20am)

 


==========
The Ferret
==========

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Park Road's Profile Park Road Flag 09 Dec 17 11.58am Send a Private Message to Park Road Add Park Road as a friend

Originally posted by chateauferret

Fortunately I don't have to justify my faoth to you or anyone else. If you can look at the greatnrss of creation and not be moved by it, then bully for you.

Science disproves the rxistence of all of the above by providing alternative explanations which are readily demonstrable. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a Creator without explaining in some detail the Big Bang, which is nor possible with current science and may not be possible at all. Arguabky you could invoke Occam's Razor and say that pigs might fly, but the Universe is not only wierder than we imagine; it is wierder than we can imagine.

Christians believe that God is "the creator of all things visible and invisible, ... by whom all things were made". God is then the only thing that was neither begotten nor created. Science has a problem with things that can't be explained but there will akways be things that can't be ecplained, whether we like that or not.

Christians do not believe that God is some sort of sky fairy or old gent with a beard or any of the other ridiculous images that are conjured up to belittle Him. God is by definition beyond the understanding of man. That does not prove that He is the answer to everything that science can't explain, even if you accept that some things will never be reveaked to us; nor does it prove that He even exists. But it does show that there is such a thing as belief based solely on faith.


Edited by chateauferret (09 Dec 2017 11.20am)

Chateauferret of course yo don't have to justify your faith to me I never asked you to.
And I am more than moved by the greatness of the universe. Just not in the same way as you are.
Your explanation about elements etc... On the space thread was a good read

One thing that is curious tho is how you refer to your creator as a he.

And then there is that other query on who created him, her or it?

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 11.58am)

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 12.01pm)

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 12.05pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View chateauferret's Profile chateauferret Online Flag Airdrie 09 Dec 17 1.01pm Send a Private Message to chateauferret Add chateauferret as a friend

Originally posted by Park Road

Chateauferret of course yo don't have to justify your faith to me I never asked you to.
And I am more than moved by the greatness of the universe. Just not in the same way as you are.
Your explanation about elements etc... On the space thread was a good read

One thing that is curious tho is how you refer to your creator as a he.

And then there is that other query on who created him, her or it?

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 11.58am)

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 12.01pm)

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 12.05pm)

Well He's been called Father since before the time of Christ, of course, although there are cultures who think of creation and the Earth in particular as feminine. We don't have a neuter pronoun that can be applied to animate nouns without connoting something perjorative.

Until recently everyone would write things like "You may now forward the payment to your benefactor, whoever he may be", and have the masculine import the feminine. Now the PC lot frown on it so much that people write "they" in that situation, ignoring the fact that "they" is supposed to be plural number. It rips my knitting. I'm going have serious bogglement issues if people every start talking about God as "They" in the third person! Then again there are gnostic and mystic theologies which recognise the top job in the Universe as belonging to a "Universal Spirit" or similar which is considered neuter gender. Finally, if you are speaking a language such as French or German or Russian in which gender is grammatical, the grammatical gender you assign to something has nothing to do with its real-world sex: at least three words meaning "girl" or "woman" in German are neuter, and at least one word in Russian meaning "man" is feminine. Because in English grammatical gender and natural sex are aligned for all animates, and neuter gender is assigned to all inanimates except one ("ship", we have more difficulty separating grammatical and natural gender.

I think God somewhat transcends gender differences and the choice of pronoun is just our convenience. Funnily enough in French you address Him as "Vous" but in Germanic languages as "du", "thou", etc. We have the convention of capitalising pronouns that refer to divine persons but most languages don't. As far as I'm concerned these are grammatical, not theological, points.

One curiosity around that though is that Russian has an inflective grammar with a rich set of noun declensions (six cases plus a couple of degenerate declensions), but then it has a vocative case which is exactly the same as the nominative except just one - bog "God, god", bozhe "Oh God". That this persisted as a general exclamation throughout the Soviet era suggests that grammar is not, at least not nowadays, a function of theology.

Edited by chateauferret (09 Dec 2017 1.17pm)

 


==========
The Ferret
==========

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Park Road's Profile Park Road Flag 09 Dec 17 1.16pm Send a Private Message to Park Road Add Park Road as a friend

It seems science can prove the existence of father Christmas


Let me explain. It is a feature of the quantum world that particles - such as electrons - can be in more than one place at a time, provided that nobody is watching. In a famous experiment known as the "two-slit" test, physicists have been able to fire a single particle at an opaque plate with two separate slits in it. The diffraction pattern seen on the other side of the slits suggests that the particle passes through both holes at once and interacts with itself. However, if detectors are placed at the slits, to see which slit the particle passes through, the diffraction pattern disappears, and the particle can be seen to pass through either one slit or the other, but not both.

The key lies in the fact of observation. Provided that nobody seeks to measure the effect with more than a certain amount of precision, the particle keeps all its options open. But if someone looks too closely, the particle makes its choice. In the language of physics, its quantum wavefunction collapses
Now, let's think of Father Christmas as a particle, obeying the rules of the quantum world. Following the logic of the two-slit experiment, it is perfectly possible for him to visit all the good children of the world simultaneously, provided that he does so unseen. If he is spotted, his wavefunction will collapse and he will be revealed as your Dad with a comedy beard after all. The quantum nature of Father Christmas explains the taboo against seeing him do his job.

But there's more. It is possible to object that Father Christmas is far too large, rubicund and jolly to be a particle. In the real-life, macroscopic world of people, elves and flying reindeer, the quantum behaviour of each of the squillions of particles from which we are made averages out, so what we see is the everyday phenomenon of causes preceding effects, and people who can never be in two places at once.

Cynics might attribute this last consequence to the deficiencies of Railtrack, but it is a fact that real people, even bearded men with red hats and big boots, tend to be found in discrete locations, irrespective of whether they are being watched or not.

This objection doesn't wash, however, because it is possible to have macroscopic quantum objects that are larger than single particles. Scientists have managed to choreograph large clusters of atoms to behave as if they were just one particle, in a kind of nanoscopic Busby Berkeley routine. Admittedly, these clusters are too small to see with the naked eye, let alone qualify as cheerful red- faced men with sacks full of gifts, but the point is made.

Importantly, these macroscopic quantum objects observe the rules of the quantum world when cooled to within a whisker of absolute zero - minus 273 C. Any warmer than this, and the choreography breaks down and the clusters behave like any old bunch of atoms.

Nevertheless, in this frigidity might lie an explanation for another feature of Father Christmas - the undeniable fact that Father Christmas traditionally inhabits cold places, such as Lapland or the North Pole. OK, so neither of these places gets as chilly as absolute zero, but it must count for something that no deserving child would address their wish list to hot places such as, say, Borneo or Brazil. The very idea is quite ridiculous. QED (which stands for Quantum Electrodynamics, as any fule kno.)

Edited by Park Road (09 Dec 2017 1.16pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Sportyteacher's Profile Sportyteacher Flag London 09 Dec 17 8.40pm Send a Private Message to Sportyteacher Add Sportyteacher as a friend

Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig

Before bed last night, our youngest suddenly ordered us to write a letter to the Elves. He wanted a simple-yet-ironic question asked on his behalf: is god real?

We agreed -- his mum and I -- to not send the letter. It's good handwriting practice and we'll tell him Elves only answer letters from children.

But obviously he's gonna need an answer soon. We are somewhere between atheists and agnostics on the faith spectrum -- although sometimes I wonder.

Anyway, how should the Elves respond?


Ask Jeremy Hunt as he is Secretary of State in charge of Health and The National Elf Service....

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 09 Dec 17 9.14pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Dear Young Ginger Pubic Wig,

If you want a good pair of sturdy school shoes for Christmas, then we are the best people to help.

Please reply , providing shoe size, style and colour and a half bottle of Jack Daniels, to ensure delivery before December 25th

Sincerely

Elf (delivery orders)

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (09 Dec 2017 9.15pm)

 


cannot think of anything profound, witty, or pseudo-intellectual to put here. fck it!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 5 ę First< 1 2 3 4 5

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > NEW General Talk > Letter to the Elves