by Viviane 609 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
As many have pointed out, a dictionary definition is not telling us what it is made of-Viv
I think you have got your wires crossed. Me and cofty were talking about magic. He said the process is not magic, and I said it was, he agreed it was magical, and that's why I brought up dictionary definitions wrt magic not spirit.
Kate xx
Hi ViV the complications of the root meanings which lead us to spirit are the hijacking of the literal meaning.
The words were in use before the woo woo brigade decided to supernatural it. Hence the very reason we discuss it on this forum.
That said I agree the supernatural composition of spirit. Is as a dog chasing its tail.
Best wishes
Electrons doing their thing is not a chemical term. Ionic and covalent bonding has nothing to do with Shrodingers wave equation, which in turn has nothing to do with the Soai reaction, which is satisfying evidence to me that spirit is the animating force in living things.
If you disagree that's fine, but you have no scientific basis to counter your opinion that satisfies me.
As a chemist, I am shocked you don't understand the fundamental nature of the relationship between the two. Let's let Richard Feynman explain it for you. The two are fundamentally related, physics explains why and chemistry works. Anyway, on to Feynman, taken from his lectures "The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences", Section 3-2.
The science which is perhaps the most deeply affected by physics is chemistry. Historically, the early days of chemistry dealt almost entirely with what we now call inorganic chemistry, the chemistry of substances which are not associated with living things. Considerable analysis was required to discover the existence of the many elements and their relationships—how they make the various relatively simple compounds found in rocks, earth, etc. This early chemistry was very important for physics. The interaction between the two sciences was very great because the theory of atoms was substantiated to a large extent by experiments in chemistry. The theory of chemistry, i.e., of the reactions themselves, was summarized to a large extent in the periodic chart of Mendeleev, which brings out many strange relationships among the various elements, and it was the collection of rules as to which substance is combined with which, and how, that constituted inorganic chemistry. All these rules were ultimately explained in principle by quantum mechanics, so that theoretical chemistry is in fact physics. On the other hand, it must be emphasized that this explanation is in principle. We have already discussed the difference between knowing the rules of the game of chess, and being able to play. So it is that we may know the rules, but we cannot play very well. It turns out to be very difficult to predict precisely what will happen in a given chemical reaction; nevertheless, the deepest part of theoretical chemistry must end up in quantum mechanics.
As you can see, physics and chemistry ARE related. I am surprised you didn't know this basic fact of chemistry.
I understand things fine and can explain things well. I am confident I know how chemistry works.
Clearly not, as seen above. In any event, all of this is off topic. If you want to learn more about chemistry, feel free to start your own thread and I will join in. Can you explain what spirit is comprised of?
It's from the paper on the Soia reaction. Kate xx
A google scholarly search returns nothing on "Soia reaction". You still need to explain what you mean. In any event, all of this is off topic. Can you explain what spirit is comprised of?
I think you have got your wires crossed. Me and cofty were talking about magic. He said the process is not magic, and I said it was, he agreed it was magical, and that's why I brought up dictionary definitions wrt magic not spirit.
You think incorrectly. Explain magic by invoking magic is no explanation at all. Can you explain what spirit is made of?
That said I agree the supernatural composition of spirit. Is as a dog chasing its tail.
Or, like my dog, who chases his imaginary tail (he was a rescue, it was docked when I got him, I would never mutilate an animal like that)!
http://www.rs.kagu.tus.ac.jp/soai/profile-e.html
KW has Asperger's.
Sometimes it helps to get to know a little about each other.
I am shocked you don't understand the fundamental nature of the relationship between the two.-Viv
I understand chemistry fine, you have missed my point completely. All sciences have relationships with one another. I am a credible chemical analyst.
I have explained why the Soai reaction gives rise to evidence that spirit is the animating force in living things, I am afraid your responses are not scientifically satisfying as a basis that my opinion is not valid. In nature science automatically makes catalysts. That's the spirit that animates living things.
snowbird, thanks for metioning my Aspergers. Getting to know people helps a lot on this board after all it is about supporting one another.
Kate xx
A google scholarly search returns nothing on "Soia reaction". You still need to explain what you mean.- Viv
Thanks for doing a search, oops typo should have been Soai reaction, but you didn't need to google it, I linked the paper in my post 3781. Kate xx
KW has Asperger's.
Sometimes it helps to get to know a little about each other.
Sometimes it does. Like everytime someone ignorantly makes claims about me, like how Kate did several times, it shows how they don't value knowing people at all. Thank you for pointing out how people should be considerate of others before spreading falsehoods.
Like everytime someone ignorantly makes claims about me, like how Kate did several times, it shows how they don't value knowing people at all.-Viv
I think this is off topic. If you want to rehash this kindly comment on this thread as it's more appropriate.
I understand chemistry fine, you have missed my point completely. All sciences have relationships with one another. I am a credible chemical analyst.
Your point was that physics had nothing to do with chemistry. You were clearly wrong (and off topic). Can you explain what spirit is made of?
I have explained why the Soai reaction gives rise to evidence that spirit is the animating force in living things, I am afraid your responses are not scientifically satisfying as a basis that my opinion is not valid. In nature science automatically makes catalysts. That's the spirit that animates living things.
You did no such thing at all. It's laughable that someone who claimed physics had nothing to do with chemistry (and immediately reversed that position and tried to claim to never have said that) talks about something being scientifically satisfying. You've presented no premise or evidence that chemical reactions have anything to do with spirit. Any such claim is a scientific joke since you haven't even defined "spirit" as something that can be pointed to as a thing.
If in fact you are a chemist (of the PHD type, not working in a chemist store filling prescriptions), you would have a good understanding of how to properly present a hypothesis. At a minimum, you will need to define your terms (you did not), present your premise and why that is your premise, what lead you to it (you did not), your supporting evidence and how it relates (you did not), and your conclusions (you did not). You also need to be able to defend your position from a critical analysis (so far, you haven't been able to).
To pretend what you are saying is science should be embarassing if you are indeed a scientist.
So, can you tell us what spirit, the god you believe in, is specifically made of? Angels, demons, the life force you speak of, what is this stuff made of?
