Is it Legal to Ban a Philosophy?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:06 PM 24/09/2005

So, Philosophy, philosophy of Law, well, in the philosophy of Law we find the recognition of the 'Spirit of the Law' difficult at best to define, yet none the less acknowledged inasmuch as what is sought by Law is "Justice" Justice is a Sense of Fairness and Equality having been served, and 'seen' as served, in a situation wherein someone/something has been aggrieved/injured/trespassed upon and is in need of restitution/rehabilitation/restoration.

But be clear enough that this is a Practice of a philosophy, a Love of Wisdom as that is what 'philosophy' means etymologically (sorta), wisdom is the rendering of Good Judgment, Good Judgment can only be rendered when it is based upon a proper sense of the truth, that being therefore the Goal of the practice of the Philosophy of Law, seeking to uncover the Truth as to be enabled thereafter to practice Good Judgment in rendering the needed restitution/rehabilitation/restoration.

Notice how it all revolves around Truth...and God is the Truth, but God is of "The philosophy of Religion" yet, seemingly the two are conjoined inasmuch as both are "Systems of Beliefs" hence philosophical in nature, as they are both set upon a basis of 'Ideals' Ideals that cannot, and are not 'applicable as verbatim' to the areas, and values, in life that they must, none the less, govern over.

The problem is that the Laws are perfect, just that what they attempt to rule over, humanity, cannot act with the Perfection of the Ideal, hence we see the entirety of it as, somehow flawed, none the less, it is the only manner that works, so it is pursued to the attempted enrichment of all by manner of "A System of Justice".

But the Point of this is somewhat simpler inasmuch as the practice/preaching/teaching/rule of law is based upon philosophical teaching, in recognition of a 'Spirit' of said teachings, therefore (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=689#post689)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Lets also take clear notation of the idea that, both! Law, and Religion, are Philosophies ascribing Codes of Moral Conduct....ergo: same purpose, same end(s) only dfference is in Who creates the Code, God, or Humanity.

So how can Humanity create a Code that seeks to Deny God having done so before them....after all, if it is, simply, a Creator, then it must be recognized as having Preceeded US, any other explanations, that would follow (Time wise) would be explanations derived from exactly what that Creator Created/DID!

Talk about "A Shot in the...." well, seems it went a little higher, then the/their foot..... :rolleyes:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

So if your uncertain of the Above arguement, try thinking this through...

...Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=239)
cause it sorta works out to the same thing, except, God can Have Mystery, Human Law/Code/Rule/Statute/bylaw cannot.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

from this site Science V Religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5304385,00.html) a News Page guardian.co.uk

as posted, on that page, at the bottom:

President Bush has also weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.

Is there a coorelation?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

More *Here* (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=701#post701)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Apparently I have recently heard that one of the reasons why they want to ban the teaching of God in American Schools is because they have no 'Proof' of God, so I ask the simplest of Questions, Have you looked EVERYWHERE?

After all, there is an ENTIRE UNIVERSE in which to look, and the evidence of the existence of God might just be Minute, and hidden on some really really far off planet somewheres else in the Universe.

All proofs are subjective attestaments, as is the proof of Darwinism, nothing more then a concensused agreement of Subjective opinions (the idea of Physical evidence is by subjective attestament as well, so) which is exactly the same thing that the religions teach about God, a Concensused agreement of subjective attestaments, and whatever physical evidence there is of the existence of the peoples who have made such attestaments....Oh Yes, if you need me, to do that, to prove that "I" too 'exist' and will attest to the FACT of the existence of God, please E-mail me.

Thanks

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

If we need, in the Pratice of the Philsophies of Law, want of the Perception of Equality before the Law, we would need recognize the Abilities of the Opposing Positions to fulfill there own Given Criteria of Proofs in the Greater, and Lessor extents, of the Encapsulation of their respective Ideologies.

That given, then it must be of/in the Ability of Science, as presentor of Case of Merit in a Democratically construed Place of 'Seen Justice' a Courtroom, therein the Party, "Science" Must Prove it's Ultimate assertion of the Ability to Prove ALL Greator And Lessor Criteria of there Postulate, hence the Need of the Ability to, either, Prove/Proof that there Is, or is not, an Infinity, or admit to the In-ability of Proving it*, or DROP it from ALL scientific postulate(s) and face the Child asking you: "And what is outside of that?"

Hence the two arrive at a very similar conclusive dilema inasmuch as Neither of them can Prove, nor dis-Prove, their Ultimate viewpoint as a Sumation of all of what either of them 'Knows', (as provable/proven) singularily, or in totallity, (as all of the singularities must sum to the Same totallity) the Un-Imaginable....But that does NOT prove it as Imaginary, just un-provable.

(A Bit like what I can do, Un-Provable, sorta)




(* same as the Ultimate Sumativation of the Religious People(s), UN-provable-yet 'Proven' (subjectively) as the same 'thing' (endpoint) the 'Infinite' or 'God' some what 'equals' inasmuch as they cannot be proven, yet as cumulated 'Ideals' and as equals...sorta, in the Mystery of God more is 'Known' then just the Physical, but only as per the subjective attestaments of People)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Funny, you would know that the two are the same because both of them are beliefs, or if you would wish to, you can 'dis-belief' either, or both, but Neither is Provable, nor has any comport in physical reality, no Physical evidence is available, nor forseeably available, as to be able to either, Prove, or Dis Prove, either of them...so why would you try to make one Belief Illegal and the Other Belief Legal? especially when it is sooooo fundamental to all of the cultures of our collecive societies that they be allowed to continue to teach there belief systems that a Governance would decide, under some sort of Pseudo law/legalizms that it could remove from the Schools the Teaching of the Philosphy of Religions that sees the very same In-describable feature, yet it ascribes it to an intelligence, while the other sees only it's own intelligence, but similarily as in the Very same feature...why/HOW could anyone ban such teachings?

Would you BAN the teachings of and/or in a 'Belief'...are you trying to tell us all that we can no longer Believe? That ONLY the Available Believing systems of science are to to be taught, as that is also the culmination of Scientific processes, it too is a System of 'Beliefs' supported (not always) by physical evidence, as are religious teachings, just that the evidence in religious teachings is too Anthorpic for the Scientists' mind....too bad for them, but please, don't make me pay, because they won't admit to it!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

3:21 PM 13/10/2005

So, if the debate remains the Idea of "Intelligent Design" as not being Provable, then the Other side must show that it DOES have the Proof of Intelligence, How it came/comes to be? what it is? how it work? etc.? etc.? Otherwise they have NO greater Purchase in any Proof Of the Truths' respective to/of "Intelligence" then anyone else, as presented by either Reality=PhysicalScience OR Religion=PhysicalSciencePLUSmystery? or the Re-titlement as the Somewhat "Generic" term for the "Intelligent Designer" GOD and/or The Creator.....by Intelligent Design, too!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Humm separation of "Church and State" means NO One "religious Person' is allowed to teach about only their 'Ideology of God' but the States' Responsibility remains, to education, thus All Possibilites must be included, a Special Course on the 'Other' Mythologies, as no one alive today can make an attestament of Witness to anything preceeding what? (The Year 1850 sounds like a Really Safe Number) how old is the Oldest Living Human? cause that is the Correct year for the Oldest Living Witness as proof of anything, all the rest could have not been there, created at the Moment of that persons Birth, and ALL else that followed, No one can Prove it any different.

After that well, trust what you 'see' as evidence? Sorry, No Counsel on that one.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So where does intelligence come from (consciousness) anyways? anyone know? got Proof? anyone?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:04 PM 10/25/2005

Funny....? The Science people are saying that the Religious Belief(s) Systems Don't have any "predictions" and "testablity" of those, self same "predictions".

Is it Ironic? "I" Would say that, Here: "Here is a Moral Code, Follow this without trangression" therafter "I" 'predict' that: "NO ONE! Can Accomplish it" therensues the "testability" Scientific Study (Psychology/Sociology/Medicine=people) I hear.

It is said that: "When Science Finally gets over the Hill, it will find Religion, waiting there, for them......in awe of the Mystery behind it all"

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

You've got to explian this one to me, if life is not by "Intelligent Design" then why is it that the only description/knowledge available is of an 'Intelligence' (ours) so then how does that preclude God?

How is it that 'Intelligent Design' Is NOT proven?

If we cannot prove intelligence, O.K. then no intelligent designer, but since we seem to easily accept "intelligence" (Especially or own) and it clearly has NOT been out of 'our own' that devised that which we must still learn about, our place of existence, as we still do not know how all of it works, physical and otherwise, then why do we question the existence of an intelligence greater then our own? when it can be proven that a greater truth lies within you, greater then you yourself yet realize....(that is provable about human intelligence, it uses an intelligence {truth} that it has, yet doesn't consciously know it is using, the Sharpe Writing 'proves' that) then it is classically wrong and erroneous to state that the Idea of there having been an Intelligence behind the design of All physicality, is wrong, as it will be proven out by the use of Metaphysics (Required!) in the theory that generates the Answer (T.O.E.) to the Manner of all physicallity.

Intelligent design is what the evolutionists study, the Design of the intelligence that created all things, it is mostly the 'timing' itself that is a ltittle off in certain tellings, the idea of certain peoples having lived "Hundreds of years" when, if counted as/on a Lunar calendar of Life/living it returns to the Normallacy of Human Lifetimes.

13 moons per year, if counted as "years" then 72 (years) x 13 (moons) = a 936 "Year" old person......simply an accounting error?

To have started out an ancient Holy book with the lines in the beginning there were the Photons coupled to the protonic elements staging a coupling as to begat the neutron thus mass, thereafter begating the Adnine-Thynine-Cytocine-Guanine spiral as the encoder of the Living message of the life itself,.......YIKES! who would have understood that? fundamentally what the creator wanted us to understand, was ourselves, as that is how we could learn to understand that creator......not from, or in, the Words that Science affords us, as that/those is/are just too recent a discovery.

Please prove to me there is No Intelligent Design when all that I see/know tells me that there is an Intelligence behind the Creation, an Intelligence that I can find a Reflection of, from within, myself.

Gonna prove that the inside of 'me', isn't there?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Me, what I want, first is for "Science" to prove that you can have a creation without there having been a creator! as that principal is observable as True and holding true, throughout the Universe, leastways as Far as any Human being is concerned.

'Intelligent Design' is simply the wrong wording as 'intelligence' is "the ability to learn" what created all of this obviously KNEW what it was doing, so "Knowledgable Design" could work, or Creator/Created Design Works really really well......


No Creation without a Creator, prove it/that wrong FIRST please.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Lets see now, do we have any evidence for that 'creator' 'created' 'creations' 'things' 'lines' 'stuff' O.K.

So in Science we have Biography, Lots of Biographies usually noting the Works of People acknowledged as Having Created Something, even to the Idea and/or Notion Itself.

(in theorectical workings)

So Science Acknowledges Accredatory Rights of Authors and Inventors, and sees Clearly that Invention and Advancement(s) in Knowledge are accreditable to Something/Someone

Yet it is only the Physical Evidence that they themselves manipulate, and use to Generate their creation(s), Inclusive of ALL theory (that is seen as acceptable as it is Concordant with that Evidence) that it is "drawn from" what is seen as 'The Universe' (or 'The Creation') then the Origins remain Mysterious, to any, and all without exception and the Right to Deny Any Possiblility of there being a In-Solidity to the Rule: A 'Creation' Being Begatted By A 'Creator' CANNOT be SCIENTIFIC in Nature as it VIOLATES SCIENCES' VERY FOUNDING FATHERS RIGHTS, and what they studied.

Till you can prove that something can be 'created' without a 'Creator', well, "I" would Predict it: "You'll never be able to do that! either!" (cause you would need Create it, after all, the rest of the animals "aren't a Going to do it" so show me something that Completely & Spontaneously 'Self Creates', NO cause, and Not from Effect either, SELF-Creation!)

Otherwise I would suspect your not aware of the History of Science, ALL of the People who have Stood upon the 'Shoulder of a Giant' have all stood upon the Very same Shoulder, same Giant, and ALWAYS! ONLY! by the Permission of that Self-Same, Giant

Your just afraid to admit that maybe it really isn't 'just you' ( as in 'I' -pronounced 'eye') in there.

When teaching Children it Behooves you to tell them that it is very Possible that all of what Science can teach them, is From 'whatever' Created this Universe and all of what is, as that is Just as Much a Possibility, and Science is Renown for it's wanting the Naysayers Side Upheld just a Rightfully as the Yea Sayers Side, so why are you here now trying to have this, actually a "Yea-sayers" (Believers in 'Creator') side, shut DOWN?

AND Can you prove it?

Alone.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Saw a television report on a Scientist who had generated 'Self Generating Machines' on his Computer, funny, (Not laughing at them funny) cause it makes me think of the one on the Formula Ones race car Show and the Calculations for the Wind resistence(s), NEEDED a Computer to Figure out all of that math, seems the one who fooled himself into thinking that, somehow, this creation he sees 'self created' well, he too didn't do all of the math, All of the Way out to the Ends that it would appear to Allow as demonstrated by the Situation wherein he Thought that Somehow this had all 'self generated' and it wasn't realistically simply the Programming that HE had Written that the Computer could Follow, do the math.

So lets see, first you must create an 'Empty Space', so Space-time must also Not appear as a Part of your Creation, then, Well, it is 'Self Generating' according to you, ergo Completely Random according to time, so, maybe it will appear, Maybe Not, Maybe Not in Your Lifetime, Me? I am NOT going to spend My Lifetime waiting to see as it could easily require several Billions of Years before this 'Self Generating' thing, you seem to believe in, Shows UP

O.K. Next Question?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

8:36 AM 03/11/2005

Oh Yes, if that 'Self Generating' thing Does, actually, ever show up, well, the First thing you would need do is to Prove that that, its'self, (what showed up) is NOT The Creator, nor Created By A/The Creator, and ESPECIALLY that it isn't, simply, some manifestation of 'Cause and Effect' drawn from your efforts' to Play with (the) Space


All is Anthorpic as all language is Anthorpic, after that, It is Simply what you can prove as Existent, the Measurements that Science takes to Prove things, then the Rest, the Ideals which is/are Impossible to either prove, or Disprove.

Argue (Arrrrgh-ya) all you would want to.

Write A T.O.m.E. "Theory of matter-Energy" all that's left after that is/are the 'Ideals'

Religion is About Moral Law, Science uses Codes of Ethics for it's practise(s) But has no Moral Authority, nor takes any, in any other part of Human Living, thats' why we have Bombs.

(Created by 'someone' too)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:00 PM 11/3/2005

There is also that little Problem of Time, Given that the Creator wanted No Proof of It's Existence other then from Anthropic Sourcing, well, The illusion of time is well kept.

That is why the requisite of Belief is there, and there for All Scientist, or Non Scientist, Believer, non Believer .....(without order)

No Proving Certain Parts, all of the rest is the 'Substance/Substantibility/Measurablity' of it all, Energy included, as it Has a Behaviour, a Flashlight shone upon a Scale gives a reading, wherein it behaves as though it was interacting 'matter' by exertion of force upon another mass. (AKA The Universe/Cosmos)

Fun Stuff Right? (God's Grace I think So)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

9:06 PM 03/11/2005

The Idea of 'creator' well, if a Perfect Omnicient Being Were a Provable Fact, no one, would feel Free.

So, thereafter there is no Proof/Proofs/Proving(s) other then the Anthorpic attestament to it, of/by anyone who can.

That is why...no Proof = feel Free!

"In the Beginning there was darkness upon the face of the deep"

'Where the Big Bang Occured, in the First, More then One Hundred Thousand YEARS of Time, there Was NO Luminesence'

(in amongst the Coupling Decoupling 'et al' occurances/events Spoken of at the Phy'sicsforuhhhms? concerning the Cosmic Background Microwave Energy and readings the idea that there was no immediate light/EMR emission(s))

Then God Said: "let there be light"

Then there was Luminesence/light/EMR Emission(s) 'Science' (The Collective generic Generality)

If the Creator would have written us a Book about it all, what Language would that Creator Have chosen? And to write enough out to cover all of the time that has passed until the Work that would Encompass 'Moral Consciousness' (Homos Sapiens) What A TOME of Writing it would need be, you would need learn that language, rather then use the one you, yourselves/ourselves (Humanity Collectively) created, as that was the manner in which we would accumulate enough 'learning and Knowledge' as to be able to even so little as "Glimpse from the shoulder"

So Much Knowledge in the Genome alone that No one Human Being can Contain it all in their Head, Understanding it all (Leastways Not Yet) and yet that very Same Knowledge is inside of Every single one of you, individualized to exclusively You.

(Thanks, your a Beautiful Woman, and a Nice person, too...SHHHHH! sorry that's for me, the SHuuuusH Part!)

Can you prove to me the Organization that that Demonstrates, can erupt, Completely Without Creator?

In the Beginning there was a 'Spherical' Thing, Or A 'Point of Infinity' ('Solidity' = Energy-matter erupted into Dark 'Space') in a Non-Referencable Space Darkness with no Spacial Perception, everything that is here today came from that. That takes A Creator, cause it is ruled by 'rules' something that DOES NOT exist.

There are Apparenlty Two (Metaphysical ones) that you would need understand and/or know, that helps in knowing the rest of just how this all gets worked out, Beautiful + Perfection

The Beauty of the Creator is found in the Creation, that is apparent to anyone who does art, just that as Human Artists sometimes 'some' Don't see the Beauty that that Particular Artist is 'Expressing' some apparently didn't like the 'Plastination' exhibition...GO Figure!?

And some did.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:03 PM 11/11/2005

Oh yes, that other part, the Idea that Science is using 'Cause and effect' (as that is what ALL scientific Experimentation Does, Proves 'Cause and effect') as it demonstrates a Different 'Beginning Story' then the "Holy" Scriptures of the Planet present, yet when it comes to the Beginning of their presentation, the 'Big Bang' idea, well, 'cause and effect' seem to not be present, anymore, ignored, as if, in that part of reality 'Cause and effect' have no place, no reality, no proof, no congruence, no truth, the initial particle that expanded out to become this Universe had NO Cause

Everything that 'Science' (a generic generalization) does Proves out 'Cause and effect', yet (somehow) 'they' are all to willing to accept that the Beginning was without that, without Causation, certainly makes me wonder just how well they follow their own principals.

What if ALL of what Science has discovered, and is still to discover, is actually only a PART of the "Proof of Gods' existence", the rest is, somewhat, the cereberal experience, what then?

Conciousness is Living in the "Realm of the Imagination" that is a/THE "Metaphysical Connection" for all of you, just that, being as it is a Metaphysical Connector it is Unprovable!!, Forever!

What then?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

1:53 PM 29/12/2005

So, apparently, now, in the US, if you say that after all of the energy/matter is told of, that you suspect that there may have been a 'Creator' or 'Creative force' (knowledge/Intelligent/Idea) behind it's inception (love that idea) you shall be arrested! as being a Christian! as clearly you are simply a Christian Creationist! believing in the Bible! not a Scientist, who can see that all of the rest of it, is! the Detailed 'truth' that Was left for us to discover, by the very same 'Creator' of their Lore.

Freedom is lost in the US, lost to "Freedom!" as a Rally cry to enact Viscious Patriotisms.

" ......anyone with any intelligence, (then you) would already have gone to.... " >>Independance of Person<< ....that's not a street in New York City, not that (I) know of, I know that (Sorta) cause (I)'ve been there.

"Another word for God.." so now the wording "God Particle" must be a Scientific Illegality, carefull, you'll get arrested for saying "God-Particle" in An American School! Court Ordered! Church V State!

(Actually, funny, isn't it, it is Church-God and State-Particulate)

[AttorneyCompany]

I have been fed up with Threshold for a little while now; I felt that you had too far to go to win your bad matchups. You potentially have a lot of trouble with more aggressive decks, even with the Worships I sideboarded. My local tournaments have a lot of developed decks, but they tend towards aggressive strategies and decks like Ichorid. I combined this with a belief that Pernicious Deed is the best card in Legacy right now, and I wanted to play something UBG. I talked to friends and scoured the net, narrowing my options to Dan Spero's VoroshStill and David Gearheart's It's The Fear. VoroshStill has Standstill,