Carl-Richard

Look who is suddenly appealing to time? There is ultimately nothing that prevents what we refer to as time travel from being possible. It's only impossible if you care about immediate human shortcomings, but that is like a plant saying horizontal movement is impossible.

Change and unchange are one. Change of form happens within an unchanging, formless void. Change is dynamic because it is contrasted with something static. You can't have just one or the other. They complete each other.

Language is pragmatic.

*paging FilthyFrank and friends*

What about beards? ?

Why anthropomorphize God?

Yes. All thinking takes place in your head. That doesn't say much. Travelling from Boston to Houston is still just as conceptual as travelling from today to the stone age.

Communication and belief is pragmatic. It helps you to complete tasks so that you can survive. Certainty is a luxury. If you're distrusting what people say to the point that you dismiss all external information and let none of it inform your actions, then you're missing the point.

As opposed to travelling through space? Space is also a concept. Travel is also a concept. So what?

"Physical laws" are imagined by God. Same with "time travel". Nowhere is it written that you cannot travel through time.

I suggest not making 5 different threads about it.

Why are you starting a duplicate thread? You already posted in this one:

Would he even have been attacked in the first place if he wasn't flaunting a handheld weapon of mass destruction?

Who? The goal is to minimize spread. Hand sanitizer is one part of the puzzle. What is your point? If people can't understand the simple fact that the reason the entire world has decided to vaccinate its people is to reduce/minimize the probability of the virus spreading and endangering our society, then I don't see the point of having these kinds of threads. If you want to discuss the ethics of segregating the population, then do that, but stay on topic and don't poison the conversation with false information like "vaccines don't work!" We've had dozens of threads about that already. Learn to move on.

@Johnny Galt Even if infected vaccinated people transmit the virus at the same rate as unvaccinated people (which they don't), vaccines will still reduce the overall likelihood of transmission in the population. It's the people who are infected who transmit the virus, and vaccinated people are less likely to get infected. You're misrepresenting data by conflating probabilistic statements and absolute statements. "Vaccines don't stop/prevent transmission" does not mean "vaccines don't reduce the likelihood of transmission".

You can create belonging among non-spiritual people. What is stopping you from doing that?

Can't you see the golden glow?

The creator and creation is the same thing.

Don't go to a memory. Go to direct experience.

What do you mean by Stage Yellow cognition?

In your direct experience, point to a beginning or end in experience (something that is not an experience).

Even as a concept, it doesn't logically follow. This is what Hume discovered. If a law is a fact that is constant (not probabilistic), e.g. "all effects always have a cause", you're out of luck, because drawing upon a collection of observations and claiming a pattern (induction) is at best probabilistic (a good guess). It's a good guess that hitting a billiard ball head on will make it travel in a roughly straight line, but you can never be 100% sure.

Jreg is unironically good.

Natural laws don't exist (or they're not a "fact"). Natural laws rely on induction, which is a flawed process. Today's scientists are critical rationalists, not logical positivists: they try to test, critique and falsify their claims, not verify or justify them. You can't arrive at a natural law through falsification, because falsification is not about arriving at a final answer (e.g. "causality is a natural law"). It's about critiquing statements and eliminating the false ones. This is where some scientists get their humility from: "we're not saying we know anything for sure. We're just trying disprove our own theories."