The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Here is an example
A mother lives a Godly life. She goes straight to "heaven".
Her son, commits many sins on earth and never asks for forgiveness, doesn't even believe in God for that matter. He goes straight to "hell".
Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place where good souls live amongst God. Right?
That mother LOVES her son. Even though he was a "sinner."
How can Heaven be HEAVEN( a place of hapiness) for that mother/soul without her son that she loves?
Make sence :S ?
A mother lives a Godly life. She goes straight to "heaven".
Her son, commits many sins on earth and never asks for forgiveness, doesn't even believe in God for that matter. He goes straight to "hell".
Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place where good souls live amongst God. Right?
That mother LOVES her son. Even though he was a "sinner."
How can Heaven be HEAVEN( a place of hapiness) for that mother/soul without her son that she loves?
Make sence :S ?
Page:
EDIT: Oh dear, I always have Nintendo on the brain.
Just watch Cube 2 i think it is, that's all 4D stuff :-D
Weird.
I'll be looking at that all afternoon now :\
I'll be looking at that all afternoon now :\
That just looks like 3-d to me.
Also, you have a very weird sense of cool string boy :D
Also, you have a very weird sense of cool string boy :D
Chaos wrote:
> Alfonse wrote:
> Hm, I think I understand your point. So for me to imagine
> heaven
> would be like a 2d person trying to imagine a 3d world?
>
> I love those stories, I'm sure I can imagine 4d shapes though...
Go on, try and decribe it to me :)
> Alfonse wrote:
> Hm, I think I understand your point. So for me to imagine
> heaven
> would be like a 2d person trying to imagine a 3d world?
>
> I love those stories, I'm sure I can imagine 4d shapes though...
Go on, try and decribe it to me :)
OK. Again I disagree with your interpretation of my comments and intentions, but I'll put that down to my fluffy pleonasmic communication style.
Ultimately, this debate is probably better off without me in it. I truly do not care where we came from. If there is some divine power involved, I'm not fussed in the slightest. If we're the result of some bacterial alien rain, whatever.
The final point is that until one or another view is proven, there is no sense in me sitting here determined to ensure that whatever theory I personally find more believable is entrenched firmly into everyone else's calculations. Which is my point about debate without conclusive evidence one way or another. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss it, simply that such a discussion does nothing to further the base of evidence.
Ultimately, this debate is probably better off without me in it. I truly do not care where we came from. If there is some divine power involved, I'm not fussed in the slightest. If we're the result of some bacterial alien rain, whatever.
The final point is that until one or another view is proven, there is no sense in me sitting here determined to ensure that whatever theory I personally find more believable is entrenched firmly into everyone else's calculations. Which is my point about debate without conclusive evidence one way or another. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss it, simply that such a discussion does nothing to further the base of evidence.
Everpain wrote:
> My post centred around the fact that there is little point in
> the debate around where human life originated, and where it ends
> up, this is true. Your response however, attempted to pull from
> this the erroneous conclusion that there was therefore no point
> to human progress, and that I had dismissed the possibility of
> any external origin for life. I shouldn't even need to point out
> the error, as it is painfully obvious.
No, my point was simply that the human response is to question and this has helped us to evolve. The debate over where life originated from is part of this human nature. Perhaps I was being too reactionary, but not to debate (read research) this at all would be as futile as denying any reason for our existence, inclusive of chemical reaction.
And no, I did not even attempt to define your own standpoint as dismissive of any other origin, you simply inferred that in your own post, but I'm glad that you agree that evidence of any kind can be read in many ways.
> The origins of life will ultimately become plain in time, though
> perhaps not within a timescale that sits comfortably with the
> mortality of the existing populace. As the conclusive evidence
> to support a given answer is therefore inevitably going to evade
> us in our lifetimes, what sense is there to pontificating, and
> even arguing over the multitudinous possibilities?
How do you know this? You may be right, we might not find any viable answer in our lifetimes, but then we might stumble across it tomorrow. Who knows? I agree that Arguing about it is pointless until undeniable facts are present, but debate is both necessary and actively encourages further research. It seems ironic, considering you yourself seem to enjoy a healthy debate.
> Effort would be better spent doing something productive, that
> either added to scientific knowledge, or economically made the
> acquisition of such knowledge more viable.
But thought itself, based on evidence and even speculation, is key to discovery. All it takes is one person to come up with an idea that pushes the understanding to a different level or that moves the research in a new direction and we may be looking at an answer.
I understand your point, that debate, and pontificating to a greater extent, does not in itself create any new answers. But I firmly believe that debate and encouraging new ideas is central to the understanding of the universe.
Though my own leaning is towards a more religious explanation of our creation, as you well know, I am open to any evidence of alternatives. The idea that life originates from other planets does have some evidence to back up this theory, but there are a fair few obstacles in the way as I understand it.
Oh, and good luck with the exams.
> My post centred around the fact that there is little point in
> the debate around where human life originated, and where it ends
> up, this is true. Your response however, attempted to pull from
> this the erroneous conclusion that there was therefore no point
> to human progress, and that I had dismissed the possibility of
> any external origin for life. I shouldn't even need to point out
> the error, as it is painfully obvious.
No, my point was simply that the human response is to question and this has helped us to evolve. The debate over where life originated from is part of this human nature. Perhaps I was being too reactionary, but not to debate (read research) this at all would be as futile as denying any reason for our existence, inclusive of chemical reaction.
And no, I did not even attempt to define your own standpoint as dismissive of any other origin, you simply inferred that in your own post, but I'm glad that you agree that evidence of any kind can be read in many ways.
> The origins of life will ultimately become plain in time, though
> perhaps not within a timescale that sits comfortably with the
> mortality of the existing populace. As the conclusive evidence
> to support a given answer is therefore inevitably going to evade
> us in our lifetimes, what sense is there to pontificating, and
> even arguing over the multitudinous possibilities?
How do you know this? You may be right, we might not find any viable answer in our lifetimes, but then we might stumble across it tomorrow. Who knows? I agree that Arguing about it is pointless until undeniable facts are present, but debate is both necessary and actively encourages further research. It seems ironic, considering you yourself seem to enjoy a healthy debate.
> Effort would be better spent doing something productive, that
> either added to scientific knowledge, or economically made the
> acquisition of such knowledge more viable.
But thought itself, based on evidence and even speculation, is key to discovery. All it takes is one person to come up with an idea that pushes the understanding to a different level or that moves the research in a new direction and we may be looking at an answer.
I understand your point, that debate, and pontificating to a greater extent, does not in itself create any new answers. But I firmly believe that debate and encouraging new ideas is central to the understanding of the universe.
Though my own leaning is towards a more religious explanation of our creation, as you well know, I am open to any evidence of alternatives. The idea that life originates from other planets does have some evidence to back up this theory, but there are a fair few obstacles in the way as I understand it.
Oh, and good luck with the exams.
Alfonse wrote:
> Hm, I think I understand your point. So for me to imagine heaven
> would be like a 2d person trying to imagine a 3d world?
I love those stories, I'm sure I can imagine 4d shapes though...
> Hm, I think I understand your point. So for me to imagine heaven
> would be like a 2d person trying to imagine a 3d world?
I love those stories, I'm sure I can imagine 4d shapes though...
I'm not being deliberately vague, I was simply throwing some random data into the stew, unlike yourself, whos post added nothing but an attempt at provocation. And I do appreciate the irony that you first berate me for allegedly dismissing possibilities, only to then pretty much do so yourself.
But if you do want a continuation of the debate around my more detailed post with reference to your reply, then here it is:
My post centred around the fact that there is little point in the debate around where human life originated, and where it ends up, this is true. Your response however, attempted to pull from this the erroneous conclusion that there was therefore no point to human progress, and that I had dismissed the possibility of any external origin for life. I shouldn't even need to point out the error, as it is painfully obvious.
The origins of life will ultimately become plain in time, though perhaps not within a timescale that sits comfortably with the mortality of the existing populace. As the conclusive evidence to support a given answer is therefore inevitably going to evade us in our lifetimes, what sense is there to pontificating, and even arguing over the multitudinous possibilities?
Effort would be better spent doing something productive, that either added to scientific knowledge, or economically made the acquisition of such knowledge more viable.
You can debate against that until your fingers bleed, but at the end of the day, thought without comprehensive conclusion is simply self-contained research, and as any accountant will tell you, research just can't be capitalised. Sorry; accountancy exams next week...
But if you do want a continuation of the debate around my more detailed post with reference to your reply, then here it is:
My post centred around the fact that there is little point in the debate around where human life originated, and where it ends up, this is true. Your response however, attempted to pull from this the erroneous conclusion that there was therefore no point to human progress, and that I had dismissed the possibility of any external origin for life. I shouldn't even need to point out the error, as it is painfully obvious.
The origins of life will ultimately become plain in time, though perhaps not within a timescale that sits comfortably with the mortality of the existing populace. As the conclusive evidence to support a given answer is therefore inevitably going to evade us in our lifetimes, what sense is there to pontificating, and even arguing over the multitudinous possibilities?
Effort would be better spent doing something productive, that either added to scientific knowledge, or economically made the acquisition of such knowledge more viable.
You can debate against that until your fingers bleed, but at the end of the day, thought without comprehensive conclusion is simply self-contained research, and as any accountant will tell you, research just can't be capitalised. Sorry; accountancy exams next week...
Page: