French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Over 50

eriksank · Post by **eriksank** » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:44 pm

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:00 pmReligion is Man made...

Religion is a set of essential rules governing human behaviour, primarily by listing forbidden behaviours. A true set of forbidden behaviours is fundamentally part of the human blueprint. Irrespective of how such design came about, the true set is part of the design of the human race. Just like the regulations about how a human liver is supposed to work, his stomach, his reproductive organs, and so on, the true set of forbidden behaviours is a part of the same design manual. It is like the operating instructions of a machine. They follow from the machine's design. They are fundamentally part of its blueprint.

Just like the machine can impossibly have designed itself, in the same way, humanity has not designed itself or its own blueprint, because in such case, if a human had designed the humans, who would have designed that first human? Hence, its blueprint pre-exists humanity while its original source can impossibly be human. If a religion is capable of capturing the true operating instructions of humanity, this religion can impossibly be of human origin.

This has nothing to do with the actual content of the rules listed in religion, which could even be arbitrary. (You can always replace an axiom by a categorical derivation that rests on the axiom, just like with a basis of a vector space. Hence, it is pretty much arbitrary.).

According to category theory -- and since religion is axiomatically based on its scriptures -- this category's objects are well-formed derivations that apply the religion to questions of morality, while the morphisms are the derivation steps (the "proof") that lead from a statement in its scriptures to such well-formed derivation. It is at that level that you should try to understand these things. If you are not familiar with category theory, you can watch the following video from minute 38 on. There you will find the categorical explanation of how deductive systems constitute categories:

It would be better for you to upgrade your knowledge on that kind of meta-frameworks. This problem cannot be discussed meaningfully at the very low level at which you seek to dismiss these things. You will need more knowledge.

Post by **Jamie_Lambo** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 am

eriksank wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:44 pm
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:00 pmReligion is Man made...
Religion is a set of essential rules governing human behaviour, primarily by listing forbidden behaviours. A true set of forbidden behaviours is fundamentally part of the human blueprint. Irrespective of how such design came about, the true set is part of the design of the human race. Just like the regulations about how a human liver is supposed to work, his stomach, his reproductive organs, and so on, the true set of forbidden behaviours is a part of the same design manual. It is like the operating instructions of a machine. They follow from the machine's design. They are fundamentally part of its blueprint.

Just like the machine can impossibly have designed itself, in the same way, humanity has not designed itself or its own blueprint, because in such case, if a human had designed the humans, who would have designed that first human? Hence, its blueprint pre-exists humanity while its original source can impossibly be human. If a religion is capable of capturing the true operating instructions of humanity, this religion can impossibly be of human origin.

This has nothing to do with the actual content of the rules listed in religion, which could even be arbitrary. (You can always replace an axiom by a categorical derivation that rests on the axiom, just like with a basis of a vector space. Hence, it is pretty much arbitrary.).

According to category theory -- and since religion is axiomatically based on its scriptures -- this category's objects are well-formed derivations that apply the religion to questions of morality, while the morphisms are the derivation steps (the "proof") that lead from a statement in its scriptures to such well-formed derivation. It is at that level that you should try to understand these things. If you are not familiar with category theory, you can watch the following video from minute 38 on. There you will find the categorical explanation of how deductive systems constitute categories:

It would be better for you to upgrade your knowledge on that kind of meta-frameworks. This problem cannot be discussed meaningfully at the very low level at which you seek to dismiss these things. You will need more knowledge.

you come across as a smart guy, then you talk a load of...

Religion is a set of essential rules governing human behaviour

who wrote these rules?.....man

Irrespective of how such design came about,

its very much the point how it came about, thats what were discussing.....man

in the same way, humanity has not designed itself or its own blueprint, because in such case, if a human had designed the humans, who would have designed that first human?

......? seriously? we evolved from Apes....read a book (a real one)

According to category theory -- and since religion is axiomatically based on its scriptures

your basing everything based on theories? you mean religion is not based on facts?

if God wrote the holy book, id follow its rules, but unfortunately, he didnt, man wrote it,
if one of Gods messengers wrote the holy book, id consider following its rules, but unfortunately, he didnt, man wrote it,
a man, telling a story about a man, who is a messenger from God...
you see where its starting to lose its credibility?

Digg3r · Post by **Digg3r** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:15 am

Jamie_Lambo wrote: we evolved from Apes

Widely accepted theory is that apes and humans have a common ancestor. I have not heard of any respected journal that suggests we evolved from apes.

Perhaps it is you Jamie that should go and read a book.

eriksank · Post by **eriksank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:22 am

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amwho wrote these rules?

The real blueprint and the true operating instructions of the machine can impossibly have been written by the machine itself. In this context, it does not matter who or what process has actually designed the machine. It is immaterial.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amits very much the point how it came about, thats what were discussing.....man

In this context, I do not take a position as to what entity or process has designed the machine. I just claim that it cannot be the machine itself.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 am......? seriously? we evolved from Apes....read a book (a real one)

If that is the case, then I simply said that we did not evolve ourselves from apes.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amyour basing everything based on theories? you mean religion is not based on facts?

You have facts, which are meaningless, until you have a theory to produce an interpretation for these facts.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amif God wrote the holy book, id follow its rules, but unfortunately, he didnt, man wrote it

A photocopier can photocopy its own blueprint and operating instructions. This still does not mean that the photocopier itself originally designed this blueprint or these operating instructions.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amyou see where its starting to lose its credibility?

It depends on what exactly you claim. In this context, I do not make any representations as to the truth of the blueprint and operating instructions of the machine. There must exist a true one, but I never claimed in this context that we also know it. That is not necessary. All I am saying is that humanity did not design its own blueprint (e.g. how our stomach works) or operating instructions (what things are forbidden onto us). What entity or process exactly has designed humanity is immaterial to this claim. It simply does not matter.

Post by **Jamie_Lambo** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:33 am

Digg3r wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:15 am
Jamie_Lambo wrote: we evolved from Apes
Widely accepted theory is that apes and humans have a common ancestor. I have not heard of any respected journal that suggests we evolved from apes.

Perhaps it is you Jamie that should go and read a book.

go read a book about a theory? you mares well tell me to go read the bible lol

so youre saying we are not apart of the Ape family? and that we are 2 different species?
maybe you should read a book about the word Evolution

i for one though, believe there was a time, in history, when something happened in the timeline of humans, to maybe influence human evolution to create the modern human the one that has created civilizations and advanced civilizations over the past 6-10,000
or maybe ive been watching too much ancient aliens lol

Post by **Jamie_Lambo** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:43 am

eriksank wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:22 am
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amwho wrote these rules?
The real blueprint and the true operating instructions of the machine can impossibly have been written by the machine itself. In this context, it does not matter who or what process has actually designed the machine. It is immaterial.
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amits very much the point how it came about, thats what were discussing.....man
In this context, I do not take a position as to what entity or process has designed the machine. I just claim that it cannot be the machine itself.
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 am......? seriously? we evolved from Apes....read a book (a real one)
If that is the case, then I simply said that we did not evolve ourselves from apes.
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amyour basing everything based on theories? you mean religion is not based on facts?
You have facts, which are meaningless, until you have a theory to produce an interpretation for these facts.
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amif God wrote the holy book, id follow its rules, but unfortunately, he didnt, man wrote it
A photocopier can photocopy its own blueprint and operating instructions. This still does not mean that the photocopier itself originally designed this blueprint or these operating instructions.
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:05 amyou see where its starting to lose its credibility?
It depends on what exactly you claim. In this context, I do not make any representations as to the truth of the blueprint and operating instructions of the machine. There must exist a true one, but I never claimed in this context that we also know it. That is not necessary. All I am saying is that humanity did not design its own blueprint (e.g. how our stomach works) or operating instructions (what things are forbidden onto us). What entity or process exactly has designed humanity is immaterial to this claim. It simply does not matter.

you know i do understand where your coming from,
our organisms, the dexterity of our body, from all the quantum mechanics to the re occurring patterns in nature, or the fact that how scientists are baffled at how the universe could possibly exist because if you take any of the matters/forces in the universe and change it by millionth of a fraction (cant remember the exact number) the universe wouldnt exist, that is fact, that blows the mind of scientists,
i believe and understand that our existence is far too finely tuned for there not to have been some "creator" theory
but thats not what i disagree with...
i disagree with your book of rules that you believe isnt man made lol

eriksank · Post by **eriksank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:49 am

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:43 ami disagree with your book of rules that you believe isnt man made lol

What you are saying, is that you can see in front of you a photocopier copying its own operating instructions and therefore, that the photocopier must originally have designed them by itself. It does not matter if the operating instructions that you can see in front of you, are the true ones. That is immaterial in this case. I just say: No, it is not possible that the photocopier originally designed its own operating instructions, and we do not even need to know who or what process exactly designed it. We just know for a fact that it can impossibly be the photocopier itself. Do you actually understand what I am saying?

Post by **Jamie_Lambo** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:54 am

eriksank wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:49 am
Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:43 ami disagree with your book of rules that you believe isnt man made lol
What you are saying, is that you can see in front of you a photocopier copying its own operating instructions and therefore, that the photocopier must originally have designed them. It does not matter if the operating instructions that you can see, are the true ones. That is immaterial in this case. I say: No. it is not possible that the photocopier originally designed its own operating instructions, and we do not even need to know who or what proces exactly designed it. We just know for a fact that it can impossibly be the photocopier itself. Do you actually understand what I am saying?

what the fuck are you talking about???

im not saying the book wrote its fuckin self

im saying MAN WROTE THE BOOK!!!
the original book, not a photo copy, someone, one day, 2000 years ago, sat down, and wrote the book, it didnt just appear out of fucking nowhere
god didnt just appear one day and say,

"oi erik, hows it going mate, you should read this book i just wrote,
theres some interesting rules in there that tell you how you should live your life,
and if you dont follow them you will go to hell, enjoy!"

eriksank · Post by **eriksank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:59 am

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:54 amim not saying the book wrote its fuckin self

You fail to distinguish between the photocopier and its operating instructions. It is not about the operating instructions designing themselves. It is about the photocopier designing them. You fail to understand what the analogy is about.

eriksank · Post by **eriksank** » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:30 am

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:54 amim saying MAN WROTE THE BOOK!!!

If a book contains the true blueprint and true operating instructions of humanity, then man cannot be the original source of that book. That would be impredicative. A book claiming to contain them, could indeed be a forgery. However, that does not detract from the fact there is a blueprint and operating instructions for humanity, and therefore, that a book containing the true ones, can impossibly come from a human origin.

French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Over 50

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Re: French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia Claim You Need To Make $2,500 a Month To Marry a Cambodian ONLY IF You're Ove

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: