Get use to assertions. We can only translate for you, in your own limited language.
Yes, you are quite smug...for someone living in the shadows who has peeked out to see what all the commotion is.
That IS what you are doing, isn't it? I mean, if someone doesn't partake of something, they usually avoid it. I'm that way with sports. Never peeked into a stadium. They do sell beer...but they don't here, so maybe you could explain what it is you are doing here.
I always consider my own fate.I see. Thanks for sharing.
It's not actually personal, unless you want to consider your own fate,
Do you feel that your 'snide remarks' lend weight to your rhetoric?it's just the snide remarks.
Have you considered adhering to the statements of purpose posted in each of the forums?That's cool.
I consider all science and every forum here under Christianity.
Really? Do you not wonder why others do not find the idea of gods any more convincing than Bigfoot or alien abduction stories?No, no doubt.
Whenever you say "we", you should say who you are actually speaking for.
Are you "commanded" to do so, particularly from my perspective, in such a condescending fashion?are commanded to share.
Yet another of the reasons I like it here; this is not an echo chamber for my beliefs or worldview. I do consider myself fallible, and adjust my beliefs all the time, as I am exposed to new information. Yourself?Fair enough. Of course, I hope you know they will follow suit even if you are wrong,
What unknown?and since you are obviously searching it should be considered biased to argue against an unknown.
Sure, but the focus is on giving them the tools with which to explore reality, and evaluate claims.They my also rebel, and react to your position by taking the opposite position out of spite.
Obviously you are unaware of the popularity of reality TV.But, it does seem strange to purposely find entertainment in other people's squirming.
What if the "truth" being proffered is, by every objective measure, simply their religious opinion?The problem, I see, is that squirming is hard to read, and if you have ever been in a position of defending your word...you should know that it doesn't matter what people think when you are telling the truth and they don't believe it
<shrug>...except when it comes to what the truth could mean to you, and to them.
I find that religionists have such an odd manner in which they use the word "truth". It almost always turns out to be their particular religious opinion.The human experience has many examples. At the moment I can't think of any, which is exactly the point. You have to consider the source and how it affects even the best of truth.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.Looking at people, at their facts, is no way to judge.
I do not accept your religious opinion as 'truth'.But even if your observations are true, truth is unaltered by such faults.
Another of those veiled insults. Do feel that insults make others more open to your opinions?Likewise, shinning examples in the realm of human gathered facts (science)...are subject to the same. They just look better, and are more likely to catch a sucker.
If that is what you call it.Best of luck.
I will resume sharing.
Indeed.
You are doing it again. Your "direct and difficult questions" were, as applicable, snipped as false dichotomies and red herrings, and I will continue to do so. The straw-man is on your part.You literally avoided every direct and difficult question that I put to you by deflecting the conversation with strawmen galore,
That was your straw-man, of my position.starting with an explanation of why you accept one cosmology theory (Lambda-CDM) and reject another (Panetheism).
Irrelevant to the discussion.When I asked you why DM and DE have failed every "test" to date,
It was directly applicable to how you conduct yourself with regards to the scientific community.you grasped at straws and pulled Cosmoquest out of thin air.
Again you misrepresent my position. I am not complaining about your tactics, I merely call them out. I'm not the one trying to establish credibility here.You have no right to complain about anyone else's debate tactics while you do stuff like that.
You are doing it again. Your "direct and difficult questions" were, as applicable, snipped as false dichotomies and red herrings, and I will continue to do so. The straw-man is on your part.
That was your straw-man, of my position.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It was directly applicable to how you conduct yourself with regards to the scientific community.
Again you misrepresent my position. I am not complaining about your tactics, I merely call them out. I'm not the one trying to establish credibility here.
Do you feel that your 'snide remarks' lend weight to your rhetoric?
What then is the point of this exchange, from your perspective?...
I'm not interested in whether or no you find me 'credible', so who really cares what you think of me? Certainly not me.
Are you also a Nobel Prize winner? When did that happen?The mainstream handed Alfven a Nobel Prize, but he'd be banned at Cosmoquest too by now.
You can't handle the discussion
You are arguing theology, not physics.from the perspective of physics
so you simply cheat
Or, I focus on the content of your posts.and you go for the personal attack.
As the Sun rises and se... I mean, as the Earth rotates so as to occlude the Sun.How predictable.
Oh, that, that's easy!Translate what? Why can't you show us the evidence that is independent of your claims?
Oh, that, that's easy!
...Want to see it again?
Seriously...we CAN show each other, just not those of you who do not have the [spiritual] eyes to see. So...your worldly dialect, is it I am afraid.
I was speaking about your snide remarks. How did this become about me? Anyway...because I make it a rule only to respond in-kind, I am hopeful that snide remarks from me, are received as a sign that the other party has changed the terms to something less productive.Do you feel that your 'snide remarks' lend weight to your rhetoric?
I agree with you on this point, and find it frustratingly like, crying wolf.Really? Do you not wonder why others do not find the idea of gods any more convincing than Bigfoot or alien abduction stories?
Please do not misunderstand my position of authority as fashion (as condescending). Sorry to have appeared so.Are you "commanded" to do so, particularly from my perspective, in such a condescending fashion?
I use to until I got hit between the eyes with something that trumped everything else. Now it just grows.I do consider myself fallible, and adjust my beliefs all the time, as I am exposed to new information. Yourself?
Again, a frustrating distraction which causes confusion...a disservice indeed.I find that religionists have such an odd manner in which they use the word "truth". It almost always turns out to be their particular religious opinion.
The truth hurts (at first)...but remember, I only respond in-kindAnother of those veiled insults. Do feel that insults make others more open to your opinions?
I didn't say it was "invisible"...and it's not. I said, you couldn't see it. That's different. But since we are talking about other-worlds, why would you expect the "other" to be the same. It's not. But that does not mean you can see it, it just means you have to learn to see it...like any new language. This is why Jesus was quoted as saying: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"Invisible evidence doesn't count. I think you should already know that.
I didn't say it was "invisible"...and it's not.
I said, you couldn't see it.
But since we are talking about other-worlds, why would you expect the "other" to be the same. It's not. But that does not mean you can see it, it just means you have to learn to see it...like any new language.
Pictures, seen with the naked eye or the most advanced microscopic camera? Not on the same wave-length.Then take a picture of it and show us.
Then it is invisible. That's what the word means.
If it can't be verified, then it isn't evidence. It is indistinguishable from a hallucination.
I don't need to understand Chinese in order to see it. You still aren't making sense.
What then is the point of this exchange, from your perspective?
Are you also a Nobel Prize winner? When did that happen?
Would you stop trying to scan my brain with that thing?
You are arguing theology, not physics.
Or, I focus on the content of your posts.
As the Sun rises and se... I mean, as the Earth rotates so as to occlude the Sun.
I have not seen this "love it or leave" message here. Have you confused me with someone else?
Invisible evidence doesn't count. I think you should already know that.
I am not sure what you are talking about. As I said previously in this thread, I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but it may be that there is no polite way of critically assessing the personal beliefs of others.I was speaking about your snide remarks.
"...you are quite smug..."How did this become about me?
No, they are perceived as arrogance and condescension. Keep in mind that I am less interested in your beliefs than I am of why you believe.Anyway...because I make it a rule only to respond in-kind, I am hopeful that snide remarks from me, are received as a sign that the other party has changed the terms to something less productive.
Or trying to sell ancient life jackets.I agree with you on this point, and find it frustratingly like, crying wolf.
What position of authority? You are only a member of this forum, like me, or anyone else here.Please do not misunderstand my position of authority
Work on it. Hold yourself to a higher standard.as fashion (as condescending). Sorry to have appeared so.
Now you are infallible. Yet, inconsistent with other "infallible" believers. How does that work?I use to until I got hit between the eyes with something that trumped everything else. Now it just grows.
That is why to do not seek "religion" or "truth" here, but look for more accurate descriptions of reality.Again, a frustrating distraction which causes confusion...a disservice indeed.
In that context, it all looks like you (and most of the religionists that I interact with here) use "truth" as a place-marker for their own particular religious opinions.But that brings up another challenge: we are all using the same language. Which, ultimately, makes for THREE different definitions of "truth", if not thousands...and that is just one word. Imaging what that does to a complete statement: 1) What truth means to the listener, 2) what truth means to the misguided, misinformed, and mistaken, and 3) what it means to the one in possession of the actual truth. YIKES!
True, as in your opinion of it.It is interesting to note that, that is the [true] story of the Tower of Babel.
Or a fallacious argument from popularity. Fallacies are popular in these forums.With enough of those confirmations [of truth], one might just begin to see the writings, in a different light.
Your religious opinions cause me no discomfort.The truth hurts (at first)
I am only here to observe your actions. If you are only going to be argumentative, are we done here?...but remember, I only respond in-kind