StreetScooby

I mean energy as a physicist would understand it. You're with me. In my next thread, I discuss what these may be. Let me reiterate. I am not proving or disproving the existence of God. I'm putting to words how I have decided to view the word "God" as a verb, not a noun. We are all engines of karma

I agree with what you're saying. You're being strict with the language, and that's good. Unfortunately, in trying to bridge God and the 1st Law there's this weak bridge that I've resorted to calling "God observations". In my Correlations thread, I assert that our science has NOT identified all known reservoirs of energy. And the interaction with those unknown reservoirs of energy can produce "God observations", i.e., here's something we don't understand, therefore God must be involved. Bottom line, the point I'm trying to reach here is that our science has NOT identified all known reservoirs of energy. More on that in my next thread. Yes, and that's well put. Again, my argument here would be the potential interaction with a heretofore unidentified reservoir of energy. Agreed, and again, well put. We are all engines of karma

ROFLMAO!!!! We are all engines of karma

Just to keep things on topic, we're not proving or disproving the existence of God in these discussions. All I'm doing is demonstrating how I came to view God as a verb, and putting it out in this forum for debate. If nothing else, maybe I'll refine my thoughts on the matter. We are all engines of karma

We're not proving the existence of God here. We're demonstrating how I came to view God as a verb. Another thread or two, and we'll be there. We are all engines of karma

Good point. I concede this as a weakness in the delivery of my argument. My point is - there are many observations of God through out of the planet, across cultures. Jumping the gun here a little, I'm trying to demonstrate how I've reached the conclusion that God is best viewed as a verb in our language, not a noun. We're not there, yet. We are all engines of karma

You're right. That should be retitled to "This thread's major point", or something along those lines. Now I see what you were saying in the Observations discussion. Good feedback. I'll restructure future threads accordingly. Have a better word I could use? Again, the "conclusion" really is the point I want taken forward into subsequent threads. We are all engines of karma

Introduction ============ This thread is a continuation of the following threads: Introduction - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Language - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2398138;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Science - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2399827;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Observations - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2400882;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Summary ======= This thread introduces a real world example of a correlation. Discussion ========== A great scientific law (a correlation) produced by mankind is embodied in what is known as the First Law Of Thermodynamics. It is stated as follows: The energy of the universe is constant. This phrase is used by scientists in all cultures on this planet. What does it mean? Energy is defined as "the capacity to produce change". So, to apply the 1st Law of Thermo in the real world, you look for change. Every time you see change happening, you say to yourself "ah, that was a flow of energy". Since the energy of the universe is constant, that flow of energy must have gone from one "cup" of energy to another "cup" of energy, otherwise the energy of the universe wouldn't be constant. For the rest of this discussion, those "cups" of energy will be referred to as reservoirs of energy. Here's a concrete example of change, and it's description via the 1st law: A Mack truck is rolling down the road at 60 mph. It hits a brick wall. What happens? Change. In formal terms, the kinetic energy of the truck flowed into the molecular energy of the brick wall, thereby producing change. Again, the keyword to use in applying the 1st Law Of Thermo in real life is "change". Anytime there is change, a flow of energy has occurred. Our science has formally identified many reservoirs of energy. Mankind has become really adept at applying the 1st law, e.g., we put a man on the moon in the 1960s. The 1st Law is not something that can be proven mathematically. It can only be disproven, and it never has been, to date. And, it never will be. Once the energy numbers don't add up, it means a new reservoir of energy is waiting to be identified. That's the current state of our scientific process when it comes to applying the 1st law. My point going forward ================= Our science has NOT formally identified all reservoirs of energy that exist. We are all engines of karma

My point was that scientists haven't yet been able to "correlate" God observations. These observations tend to be disparate. Many cultures, including our own, have noted a "higher force" in action in their lives. This is what I've taken to calling a "God observation". I agree that's these observations are not strictly reproducible. Again, they tend to be disparate. Good point. I concede this as a weakness in the delivery of my argument. My point is - there are many observations of God through out the planet, across cultures. We are all engines of karma

Why have a word for it if it hasn't been observed? We are all engines of karma

How so? We are all engines of karma

Introduction ============ This thread is a continuation of the following threads: Introduction - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Language - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2398138;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Science - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2399827;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Summary ======= This thread introduces a real world example of an observation. Discussion ========== Within reason, it's fair to say that every culture on this planet has a well developed word in their language for the observation of God. These observations have proven to be difficult to correlate within our current scientific process, as practiced by professional scientists (i.e., people who actually make their living doing science). Conclusion ========== God is a reproducible observation across cultures. We are all engines of karma

Home prices are down about 10% in Westchester county (just north of NYC). We are all engines of karma

GNU stuff is free. Just download it. Tends to be pretty good stuff. We are all engines of karma

Only reason I ask is the Dell fiasco. We are all engines of karma

Do these batteries run hot? Can they catch on fire? We are all engines of karma

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. We are all engines of karma

Can you post a link to the article? We are all engines of karma

Check out a good chiropractor. Finding a good chiropractor is going to be difficult. Good luck. We are all engines of karma

I agree conceptually with what you're saying. This discussion is going to lead us directly into what you're saying. Should I elminate that phrase from this basis? Or, is there a better way to phrase the importance of reproducible observations in accepted science? There's alot of observations out there, especially in the "occult" area, that are not considered to be valid observations by most scientists. We are all engines of karma

Introduction ============ This thread is a continuation of the following threads: Introduction - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396715;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Language - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2398138;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Summary ======= This thread gives a simple definition of science. Discussion ========== Science can be defined as "observation and correlation". Observations are taken by many different people, and written down. Over time, the people actually start using the same words to describe their observations. At this point in time, the observations are deemed to be "reproducible". The only observations that count in science are reproducible observations. Correlations, in very simple terms, are when the math people take reproducible observations and summarize them in meaningful terms (e.g., equations, laws, etc). In general, lots of new words are created in the language during this process. Then, the cycle repeats itself. Conclusion ========== The process of science is simple to understand. In practice, it's very difficult due to the burden of language, and the absolute mandate for reproducible observations. We are all engines of karma

I jump a Sabre 150, and used to roll the nose. Never got an on heading opening. Now, I just push the nose into the tail before wrapping it. It opens fine, and on heading. We are all engines of karma

And, somehow, I believe you We are all engines of karma

Now, pull your pants up We are all engines of karma

Yes We are all engines of karma