The wavelengths existed.
Exactly. Even if "we" thought they didn't... and/or couldn't prove they did, at the time. Regardless of what "we" thought... and taught... they were there. Thing is, "we" tend to say things aren't... until "we" say they are. Even if they are.
We could just as easily move t he goal posts in either direction and call that color spectrum 'farnutgly'.
Yep. We can call it all manner of things. Apparently, we can even deny they are there at all, even if they are, as well.
The color and the wavelengths always existed, we just set artificial boundaries and game that a name so we could all know what we were talking about.
Yep. Exactly. WE set those boundaries. As "we" tend to do with... well, everything. Even the Most Holy One of Israel ("God"). Or... constrastly, deny that there are any at all... or a need for any. But not everything exists within the boundaries "we" set... at a particular and/or given time. Sometimes "our" boundaries fall short. As they did, say, in your example as to the flavor of quarks (i.e., before "we" knew there were three).
I completely understand that you didn't ask the right question.
The right question for you, perhaps, yes. It was the right question, though, for this discussion. Please, if you haven't already, take a look at it again. Perhaps, given where we are NOW in the discussion, it will make more sense to you. If you still don't understand, though, please... let me know. I will try to restate it in a manner that perhaps you can understand. Perhaps. Given how I think/speak, I make no promises, either way.
Of course not. Everyday comsic rays from different stars hit the earth, rays that were never here before. They are new.
Straws... and I think you know that. But, okay...
Such rays, individually, uniquely... no. But then, neither were you here before you were, either. But cosmic rays themselves are not new. Just as when you came into existence humans weren't new. Those rays that hit the earth are simply new individual rays, yes, but not a new creation entirely. Same with you - although you came into existence as an individual, unique in your own right, you were not a new creation, unique in ALL ways... such that you were the first (and/or perhaps only).
So, what I "hear" you saying is that... so long as we don't UNDERSTAND it... it doesn't exist... and only comes into existence... AS WE UNDERSTAND it. Right?
Utterly utterly completely wrong in every possible sense.
Well, I AGREE that it's wrong, too... but that IS what you seem to be saying. Although, using your "red" analogy, you are ALSO saying just the opposite. Which is the point I am making: either a thing exists, regardless of whether WE say/believe it does or not... or it does not. That we SAY it does not... does not MEAN it does not.
You don't understand science.
Perhaps. I mean, I certainly don't understand the "moving target" of science. And even less the "moving target" that often goes on to explain "science" (like what often takes place here)... but I do understand the PREMISE of science (that if it exists "we" would/must have "proof", which proof must be empirical, and until we do/if not it doesn't [really] exist). I just happen to think that it's flawed... and that your analogy as to the color red supports that.
This wasn't about quarks, EP. C'mon, you can do it: free your mind... and the rest will follow. [Emphasis added.]
If you thought my post was about that, it's you that needs the understanding, not me.
I did not think that, at first, no. In fact, I was a bit joyful thinking that perhaps you did understand after all. But your "moving target"... mmmmm... position left me thinking perhaps you didn't. What I mean by that is that you seem to want to have it both ways: red existed... and exists... even though we might say it doesn't... because WE haven't see it (yet, if we ever do) or empirical evidence OF it... yet, some things do NOT exist, because WE say it doesn't because WE haven't seen it (yet, if we ever do) and unless and until "we" do... empirically... it does not exist... because a thing only exists if/when "we" [can] have empirical evidence of it (and "we" determine what that evidence is, which "we" say MUST be empirical, as well). Although "we" can admit that, yes, some things DO so exist, even if "we" haven't seen them... or evidence OF them, empirically... yet.
Trust is that you will let that one lead you; faith... is knowing... he will get you where he said he would,regardless of what happens along the way.
Why the hell would you trust someone you didn't have faith in? It's the same thing. Semantic games get you nowhere.
Uh-oh, that one hit a nerve, did it? It's not the same thing, really. I trust my husband, yes. He has never lied to me (as far as I know... and I know a lot when it comes to him). But I don't have faith that he can/will, say, resurrect my mom. Or my dad. Or me. Why? Because (1) he has never resurrected anyone before; (2) he has never died; (3) he has has not died and resurrected himself/been resurrected from the dead; or (4) told me that he will do so, for himself or anyone else. On the other hand, I also trust Christ for the same reason: he has never lied to me. I also have faith in him, however, that... for example (and this is just one example, but probably the most important one)... he will not only resurrect my mother, father... but even me... because (1) he HAS resurrected others; (2) he HAS died; (3) he HAS resurrected from that death; and (4) he TOLD me that he would do so for my parents... as well as for me. And no, I don't mean he told me in the sense that I read it in a book. I mean told me, himself, in his voice. Him telling me... in his own voice... is how I know he DID die and resurrect... and now lives... because dead people don't speak. Him telling me, then... and me hearing his voice... such that I know HE did it (because, again, dead people don't speak)... was the evidence that showed ME I could put faith IN him... expect what I hope for FROM him: that he could and would do the same for me (and my parents) - resurrect to live, and the same kind of life HE has. Not because I simply TRUST him to do it, but because of the evidence he gave me. As a result of that evidence I have faith in him... that he not only CAN, but WILL.
Look, I've made the science stuff as plain as I can and you still don't grasp it at all.
As plain as you can, yes, you HAVE... and I truly appreciate that! And, again, I don't disagree with you: red was there, IS there. Was... long, LONG... before "we" said it was or knew how it was/could manifest. It didn't need "us" to make it so, though. But, in reality, "we" don't believe something exists, IS there... UNTIL "we" make it "so." Which we do by "discovering" it so that we can now realize it empirically. But even if we never DID realize it by such means... never did "DIScover" (and so, UNcover) its obscurity (from US)... it WAS there. All along.
This is like, the 5000000th time someone has explained it to you and you aren't getting it. At all. Time to throw in the towel.
And again, I do get it. I'm not the one who admits a lack of understanding here. I met you half way. You... dropped the ball almost right off the bench. Actually, I'm not even sure you actually got off the bench. I think perhaps because you couldn't SEE the ball... because you didn't want to from the start... you denied there was one. But denying it because you don't really want to play ball, doesn't mean there was no ball. I know there was... because I tossed it TO you.
Because I care, I'll still point out when corrections are needed, but I won't try to explain it anymore.
Well, it is a free country (at least, where I am)... and here (on this board) you DO have free will (to choose whether you will or won't). If you truly want me to understand... and don't think I don't... I think you're throwing in the towel a bit prematurely. I believe we're at an impasses (if indeed that's where we are)... because you checked truth at the gynamsium door. You want us to believe that you're coming from a place of "You don't get it, you can't get it, so I won't bother trying to explain it any longer - my patience just isn't that long." When the TRUTH is that YOU don't get it... because you don't really want to. You're not TRYING to understand, because you don't WANT to understand. You don't want to because you believe you've "been there, done that" before. Yet, the TRUTH is that you haven't... which is WHY you engage. If it were the same ol', same ol'... you would have been done long, long ago because when it comes to the usual discussions about/arguments for the existence of God... there's "nothing new under the sun."
As Christ said, though, THIS... IS something "NEW"... at least to YOU. It is not new in that it was never in existence before, though. There are many, many, who came before who knew... and shared... the exact same things with their contemporaries. True, they were received in the same ... and I am not talking about the Prophets, per se. Socrates, whom you would most probably not consider a prophet of God (although that is who he gave the credit for HIS "wisdom" and "knowledge" to)... was one of these many. And look at how he was received. No, I am not comparing myself to Socrates. I am comparing you to those who had an issue with him... and what he shared with them... and by what means HE claimed to be able to do so. He TOLD his contemporaries that he didn't know anything, anything at all, but only what "the God" told him. This really isn't all that different from that situation. Although I wholeheartedly admit and vehemently assert that what HE knew/was given was far, far beyond anything I am permitted to share, good for nothing servant that I am). I digress...
If, though, you would free your MIND (ALLOW yourself to do that because it IS within your power to do so and I perceive it is just a bit too closely connected to your BODY, your physicality, versus what it SHOULD be closely related to - your spirituality)... you might be able to grasp that (.e.g., "the rest will follow"). It's you, though, who can't let go. Not me.
It would be as useful as me trying to do a crossword or jigsaw puzzle. No matter how much I try, my brain just isn't geared towards them.
Perhaps you don't try hard enough. I would wager that if you WANTED to do a crossword or jigsaw, if it was... mmmm... interesting... or important... to YOU... you would find a way. Sure, it might be hard/difficult at the start, but you would find a way, as well as put in the work. Because it was what you WANTED. If you didn't, of course, then you would just dismiss it. Because, why bother? Such things don't interest/are not important to YOU. In the end, people do what they WANT to do... and don't do what they don't WANT to do. Same thing as to their sight and hearing...
I just don't get it.
S'what I've been saying all along as to what I've shared with you. But you can't see that... or, if you can, won't admit that. Rather, you want ME to stop MY love for... say crosswords and jigsaw puzzles. Why? They are interesting/important to ME. And they do no harm to YOU, either my love for them OR my doing them. And if, say, I can see the end result of a jigsaw puzzle after, say, just one or two pieces... while you may feel confident in stating that there is no way I could... and that you don't believe the resultant image is what I say it is... that doesn't mean it isn't. I mean, perhaps you've never seen the resultant image (say, a bowl of fruit): doesn't mean it ISN'T a bowl of fruit... or that fruit doesn't exist. Just means YOU haven't seen it [before]... nor do you know how to complete the puzzle so that you can.
Same with you and science.
Well, I admit, I don't always get all of the PROCESSES of science, or the [related thinking} required to understand/undertake those processes. But while some of those processes may well be on the level of rocket science, the underlying thinking of why those processes are... desired... is no great mystery: they satiate the desires of the flesh. They bring "pleasure" to the (empirical) senses. Ones who need this are not "satisfied"... until their FLESH is "satisfied". Which it is NOT (sated)... unless and until it "receives" what it wants - through either a visual, audible, palatable, tangible, or odorful fulfillment. I totally get that. You, though, do not get that that is limiting, that such is not ALL there is by means of which we can realize truth.
Not a slam, a slight or an insult. It just is what it is.
No, I didn't take it that way at all, and I hope you don't take my comments/responses as such either, because they were truly NOT intended as such. We are both pretty "no nonsense" kind of people when it comes to discussing... ummmm... somewhat serious (to us) matters. We "put it out there." I realize that we didn't actually make a truce (although I really thought we did, thought I could and should take you at your word... but again, that "moving target" thing), but I intend to uphold my end of such regardless. I see no need for all of the contention that usually goes on - awfully immature to me, and I am guilty of playing along with it. But when I discern that someone IS serious... and sincere... as I do with you here, now... then out of RESPECT for that seriousness and sincerity, if not for the person himself/herself... I choose to overlook anything that might appear to be a slam/slight/insult. I choose to believe that such was not intended.
So, again, I am enjoying the discussion; however, I realize that perhaps you've grown tired of it... and I can understand/handle that. Been there in a discussion or two on this board myself. So, I'll leave it up to you. If you respond, great... we can continue. If not, no worries... and no hard feelings. Indeed, have a beer and smoke on me!
A slave of Christ,
SA
