SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

I'm not the one claiming to the authority on astronomy here. I thought you might know all this stuff.

I do, including his use of a mythical 'negative pressure" vacuum. He made it up in his head which is why he got to name his own imaginary invisible friend!

Actually, what I said was to let me know when the Christian God shows up in your lab. Post pictures.

Apparently you're having a tough time grasping the basic concept of Panentheism. Everything that we see, observe and that we can image is a part of God according to Panentheism. You could not take an image that God doesn't show up in! He is the lab, and everything in it!

 

[Michael]

If the "it" referred to here is only imaginary, it will be difficult to find.

That explains the null results of the dark matter searches at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness tests, as well as the fact that not a single astronomer can even name a source of 'dark energy'.

 

[Davian]

How would you know that?

c.

Or are gods not subject to that limitation?

You're just going to *ignore* the fact that we can observe far more active circuitry in the solar atmosphere than exists inside of your brain?

The issue is propagation delays.

Does it matter?

Immensely. Are you projecting the modern philosophy of mind onto this "awareness"?

 

[Davian]

Show me that it's a *requirement* of physics, <snip>

That is not my claim.

 

[Davian]

... as well as the fact that not a single astronomer can even name a source of 'dark energy'.

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

 

[Davian]

I do, including his use of a mythical 'negative pressure" vacuum. He made it up in his head which is why he got to name his own imaginary invisible friend!

Yet you ask questions like this is all new to you.

Apparently you're having a tough time grasping the basic concept of Panentheism. Everything that we see, observe and that we can image is a part of God according to Panentheism. You could not take an image that God doesn't show up in! He is the lab, and everything in it!

I do not care how you resolve it in your head. Post pictures that you would label as "the Christian God".

 

[ScottA]

How do you know that the tools of science can not detect the supernatural if it were real? It seems to me that you start with the assumption that the supernatural is real, and ignore every negative result.

Knowing both the finite and the infinite, not only can I say that science cannot detect the supernatural, but never will. It doesn't work that way. That is the tail wagging the dog...except, natural has no access to supernatural on their terms...only on supernatural terms.

If we look at the stories in the Old and New Testament, we see plenty of things that science could detect. We have manna falling from the sky, a pillar of fire guiding people through the desert, blind people being miraculously healed by the touch of a hand. Are you telling me that science could not detect these things?



You need to show that it is an infinite truth, first.

All of those things are simply symptoms (evidences) in natural terms. So testing them could only result in a natural explanation...which, again, is because natural does not have access on its own terms.

BUT - The supernatural has not been silent, and you should have seen them as the evidence that they were intended to be.

 

[ScottA]

Evidence?

"It is finished." The apex of all time occurred in the public eye, but being of flesh and blood and not of the spirit, you could not perceive it (by design).

 

[ScottA]

Do you think the purpose of the universe is to supply humans with a place to live?

No. The universe is a temporary creation made to bear children to God. It is like a placenta, and when the gestation is over, it is [was] discarded.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Google will provide me with much information on a flat Earth, but it will not make it flat.

The flat earth was a myth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Non-belief is the default position, or null hypothesis to any claim. Rejection of a belief does not require justification when the belief in question is not supported by evidence.

But it is, you just continue to incorrectly classify breeds of the same species in the fossil record as separate speciies.

These:

are no different than these: Just different breeds of their respective species.

It's your pre-conceived ideas which led to incorrect classifications that lead you to the wrong conclusions. Preponderance of the evidence shows you it is breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species. By the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. There is no evolution by mutation and there are no missing transitional forms.

We observe Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian. Again - through the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. And again - there are no links missing between any of them - and the new breed appears suddenly in the record.

How is this relevant? The existence or non-existence of dark matter has no bearing on my theological views.

Sure it does. Your belief of how the universe came into being influences your beliefs of how life came into existence, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Um, what?

Don't speak English?

You know full well Darwin's Finches undergoing speciation and becoming separate species is indefensible, is "Um, what" your defense?

As for your cosmological idea, pretty well any astrophysicist would agree dark matter at this point is an unproven hypothesis.

And yet they continue to posit it as the cause of galactic rotations having flat rotation rates, while ignoring the actual physics involved.

As for your evolution statement, I don't think any evolutionary biologist thinks that birds mate and produce separate species. The only people that push that idea are Christian fundamentalists. If that's what your idea of evolution is, you don't know what evolution is.

And yet that is exactly what they propose - despite the evidence. That finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species - against their own science.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html

But to echo what I said above, both dark matter and evolution have no bearing on my theological views. So I'm not even sure why you are bringing them up to me....

I think you just refuse to put that View Master down.

So let's say if you discovered tomorrow that the earth and universe were created by God, it would have no effect on your view of evolution? Is this what you really want me to believe? You can claim that if it makes you feel better, I guess, about holding to wrong theories having no effect on other theories.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Each of those is a picture of a Christian God?

Not any more than these are.

Apparently you didn't understand science when it told you energy is invisible in almost all of it's aspects - except lightning, electrical sparks, brain activity, etc.

 

[ScottA]

That is not what I asked. How would you know the truth of my statement?

Oh, I see! I misunderstood your question.

I would know the truth of your question by spiritual discernment.

The human mind cannot know matters of the spirit realm, but can only long to. With such longing, we are told if we seek we shall find. It's a promise.

 

[Davian]

The flat earth was a myth.

How do you know that?

 

[Davian]

Not any more than these are.

<snip personal attack>

Take that up with Michael.

 

[Davian]

Oh, I see! I misunderstood your question.

I would know the truth of your question by spiritual discernment.

The human mind cannot know matters of the spirit realm, but can only long to. With such longing, we are told if we seek we shall find. It's a promise.

This "spiritual discernment" - is it any different from guessing?

 

[ScottA]

Why should any of this be taken seriously, in the context of a Physical & Life Sciences forum?

Fair question indeed.

The answer, is because there is something more. And good people don't sit idle and watch others struggle without offering assistance. We have the answers to the proverbial questions of life, of science, as it were. So as science struggles with questions like which came first, the chicken or the egg, we have a choice of raising our hand, or giggling. Some giggle, some raise their hand...and that is what we are doing here. And we presume, that you are here to hear the proverbial questions answered...but are mystified at your response, much of which is ingratitude, as if we didn't have better things to do.

 

[ScottA]

This "spiritual discernment" - is it any different from guessing?

That is just disrespectful. If you asked what a word meant in a foreign language, and were given the translation, would you respond the same way?

You not knowing the language...is the problem. Don't be so rude.

 

[Loudmouth]

Knowing both the finite and the infinite, not only can I say that science cannot detect the supernatural, but never will.

Why? Demonstrate to us why the supernatural could not be detected by science.

All of those things are simply symptoms (evidences) in natural terms. So testing them could only result in a natural explanation...which, again, is because natural does not have access on its own terms.

Do you have something more than assertions to back this up?

BUT - The supernatural has not been silent, and you should have seen them as the evidence that they were intended to be.

Show me the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

"It is finished." The apex of all time occurred in the public eye, but being of flesh and blood and not of the spirit, you could not perceive it (by design).

I was asking for evidence, not more assertions.