Bro. Hex

I am constantly amazed at the number of time on this forum that I run into questions (or statements) that involve the concepts of "proof" or "absolute certainty". It occurs to me that some of us "have to know for certain" about things that others here consider "unknowable". So, I pose these questions: How comfortable are you with doubt?. Does your "belief system" involve "black and white truths", or "shades of gray"? Whichever you choose, do you know "why" you are the way you are? Do you consider "certainty" a strength? a weakness? something else?

At the risk repeating myself: "It is NOT THE JOB of science to 'prove' anything." If you want "proofs" become a mathematician, or a police detective. Science puts forth theories in an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Science often disproves theories, but never "proves" them... that's not its job. It's "job" is to discover the most likely, least complicated, theory which is capable of "explaining all of the observed data". Science is "always" open to revision, if and when new data is observed which "doesn't fit the theory". If you want "certainty" look elsewhere. Certainty is not the job of science...but probability is.

Since like FOREVER !!! Use sarcasm whenever you think it might be effective. Perhaps that is because grasping the greatness of God is NOT THE JOB of science. An automobile makes a lousy spaghetti strainer, but it's nifty for getting from place-to-place!

Steven, your position on carbon dating strikes me as, well, "fantasy". As for "proving" carbon dating, or any other scientific theory, for that matter. In science, nothing ever gets "proven beyond the possibility of error". Wrong theories get "disproved", but nothing in science ever gets "proven". We didn't "prove" that the earth is round (as opposed to "flat"), but we have certainly "substantiated" its spherical nature with lots of "evidence". And that is precisely the case with carbon dating. There is lots of "evidence" supporting the correctness of "the theory", just as there is lots of "evidence" to support "the theory" that water is really 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. So, saying that carbon dating is "just a theory" puts it into the same category as "E=mC2".... It has never been "proven", but it sure makes one hell of a KABOOM !!

I hate to admit it, but I immediately came up with the "intuitive" answer of 10 cents for the ball, and even after reading that the analytical answer was 5 cents, I was puzzled as to why. Finally I realized that if the Bat cost was 1 dollar, and the ball cost was 10 cents, then the bat would only be 90 CENTS more than the ball. I think that this was a legitimate test of logical reasoning (which I failed!)

I really like the sentiment reflected in the title! Thanks, Rev Rainbow.

Congratulations,Mark!

" Because the shadow is identified with that which is maladaptive and worthless, seeing through the projection of the shadow constitutes 'a moral problem,' for...to become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of (our) personality as 'present and real.' We must make some very unsettling discoveries about ourselves. However do we do that? How do we become aware of our shadow?" Carl Gustav Jung

Hello Constantine319, Welcome to our forum. I will give my answer to your question a bit later, as I am at work now. Just wanted to welcome you. Hex

Thank you for this, Rev Timothy!

ULC degrees are all HONORARY degrees. For specific information regarding study guides, types of test questions, etc. I suggest that you write (or email) the ULC Seminary, and pose such questions there. http://www.ulcseminary.org/seminaryProgram.php

Bishop Corey, you come up with the damnedest pix!

Hyper, every once in a while I discover that I agree with you on "something". This is one of those times !

Brother K, I understand the desire for revenge after Hyper's crass posts, but your parody of a "Liberal" is just as unfair as "Hyper's parody of "Libertarian" Just sayin'

Hyper, I do not care for the Libertarian point-of-view AT ALL. But I cannot "find the truth" in this "parody of the other guy".

LOL!

Isn't Buddha Purina a trade-name for "Food of the Gods"?

Jon, I had to read your post THREE TIMES before I realized that you had done anything other than simply reposting my original paraphrase of Excerpta ex Theodoto 78 . If you are going to INSERT text into someone else's post, I suggest making it a different color, and maybe BOLD or IN ITALICS... P.S. I liked your comment....once I finally found it!

It is, after all, "all about the remembering" "Until baptism, they say, Fate is effective, but after it, the astrologers no longer speak the truth. It is not baptism alone that makes us free, but also the recognition*of who we were, what have we have become, into what place have we been cast, whither are we hastening, from what we are delivered, what is birth what is rebirth" (Paraphrased from: Excerpta ex Theodoto 78 ) *(rememberance, revelation)

Exactly, Jon... nothing about this is "new", nor has anyone here suggested otherwise. So, let us get past this distraction of quarreling over whether the darkness is "new or not"...clearly it has been a part of the human psyche for a very long time, as much of William Shakespeare's work illustrates.. One cannot read Macbeth...or Hamlet...or King Lear without realizing just how very dark the human heart can be. As Jonathan quite correctly points out, our willingness to "own" the darkness that is PART of our human nature, frees us from the need to project that darkness onto others as we try to explain "why we did whatever it was that was done". Realizing that we are not JUST beings who are motivated by "good will toward all men"...that we are ALSO motivated by vengeance and by anger and by jealousy, and undo pride, and by hatred, and by selfishness, is a crucial part of "know thyself". Whenever we "do something" that was motivated by such a venal motive, if we are NOT aware of (and willing to acknowledge to ourselves) our "petty aspects", then we wind up JUSTIFYING our less-than-good behaviors by "blaming someone else". Learning to NOT blame someone else is a relatively "new" development.... Let's repeat that... LEARNING not to blame others for our own "bad behavior" is a RELATIVELY new development in human social ethical and intellectual evolution.(I am not talking about biological development, here, and I am are only talking about developments inside our Western culture in this observation, and most particularly the English speaking part of world .

This, of course is the truncated, and highly popular version of René Descartes' famous intuitive explication, often referred to as "Descartes' statement of the cogito". What is not so widely known is that the "full version" was far less definitive. It read as follows: "Cogito, ergo sum.......cogito" j/k

Only insofar as "existence itself" is an illusion (a very persistent one, according to Albert Einstein!).No, time and space are "aspects of matter itself".

"Hark, hark! the dogs do bark! the beggars are coming to town, some in rags, and some in tags, and some in velvet gown". A memory from my childhood, it could be found, once upon a time, in "The How And Why Book of Knowledge" (a multi-volume compendium for children) in the early 1950s

It's May!, It's May! The LUSTY month of May!