SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

Only if you were looking to establish some scientific credibility.

The mainstream could care less about scientific credibility. They handed Alfven a Nobel Prize and then promptly ignored his life's work in astronomy and the application of circuit theory to plasmas in space.

I don't know. No one else on this site seems to know that your lab is the Christian God. Should you not make some noise about that?

Where would you suggest that I begin that educational process other than on a "Christian' science forum?

 

[Davian]

You really don't grasp the whole concepts of monotheism and panentheism, do you?

Not as you seem to be portraying them here.

 

[Davian]

You. We started with conscious choice. You moved the goal posts to "free will".

Two separate sets of goalposts. Try for one, both, or neither.

 

[Davian]

Let's test that. God is that invisible energy that all things are made of and which exists in all things. With neither a beginning or an end, but eternal. That same energy which makes your consciousness possible.

So you can test that theory and discover if all things are made from energy and contain energy and transform back to energy when it ceases to exist. You can test that theory by the same belief science has about it, that it has no beginning nor an end, but is eternal. You can test that theory by understanding everything made - including that image we were made in. And no image can be made of God because no image can be conceived of for consciousness (mind). What makes you, you, is your thoughts - which since consciousness is the image we were made in - no image can be conceived for it.

So let's test that theory against the known sciences shall we?

The false dichotomy. Have you nothing but fallacies to build on?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The false dichotomy. Have you nothing but fallacies to build on?

Show one thing that was false - besides your wanting to ignore it and the science? What I thought - just claims and hot air with no substance. I see this debate is quickly going nowhere and so arguing with a fool only makes one foolish, Have a nice day!

 

[Davian]

They're still using my tax dollars to build <straw-men>

And they use your tax dollars to build libraries and roads. Have you considered moving to another country?

Yes. So?

Then why the accusation of 'false words'?

Even if I can't think of a way to do it, it doesn't mean that it cannot be done.

lol. Do you have any idea of how weak that sounds?

And you conveniently ignore the fact that pattern recognition is a staple of 'science'

and you ignore the possibility of false positives.

Demonstrate in what exact way? Empirically? <snip yet another in an endless stream of false dichotomies>

Yes, in the lab, as you say.

Rather an ironic comment since even that idea has actual empirical roots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

Irrelevant. That was not taken into account at any time when I came to believe that Santa was real.

 

[Davian]

The mainstream could care less

[pedant]
...couldn't care less...
[/pedant]

about scientific credibility.

You have to play by their rules if you want to work with them.

They handed Alfven a Nobel Prize and then promptly ignored his life's work in astronomy and the application of circuit theory to plasmas in space.

The argument from authority is a fallacy.

Where would you suggest that I begin that educational process other than on a "Christian' science forum?

Well, then, begin away. Let's see you make some noise about it. Post it in every forum, in every thread on this site!

Wait - you already do that.

Never-mind.

 

[Davian]

Show one thing that was false

I didn't say that - I said false dichotomy. It seems you are always falling back on fallacious arguments.

- besides your wanting to ignore it

Not at all. It just does not seem coherent to me.

and the science?

Indeed, what science have you presented here?

What I thought - just claims and hot air with no substance.

Your claims - I am only here to observe.

I see this debate is quickly going nowhere and so arguing with a fool only makes one foolish,

Arguing with a fool can be entertaining.

Have a nice day!

You too!

 

[Loudmouth]

Based upon your incorrect beliefs of the voltage required - from people that do not even understand what Voyager discovered - because they too lack any knowledge of electricity.

All of which you are making up. Besides, this thread isn't about your obsession with nonsense you don't even understand. Please find something on topic.

 

[Michael]

Not as you seem to be portraying them here.

It's a pity since both ideas predate my existence and most folks at least grasp the basic ideas.

 

[Michael]

And they use your tax dollars to build libraries and roads. Have you considered moving to another country?

And to think you blame me for the use of strawmen.

The empirical difference is that roads and libraries are real and tangible things, whereas their "dark" monuments are monuments to non existent, impotent on Earth entities.

Then why the accusation of 'false words'?

False words?

lol. Do you have any idea of how weak that sounds?

Why should I care how it sounds to you personally? None of the current ideas about astronomy are falsifiable by easily identifiable means. It doesn't mean they are not falsifiable, or that it cannot be done.

and you ignore the possibility of false positives.

Whereas you blatantly ridicule the value of the technique entirely, including the ability for it to result in a true positive, ever.

Yes, in the lab, as you say.

But that's not the way it actually works in "science", as the "space expansion" claim demonstrates. The whole claim A) defies falsification, and B) defies empirical lab support. The effect is all that matters, and the cause is often times simply assumed in scientific theories. The lab requirement is an example of your personal pet peeve, it's simply not a requirement as it relates to scientific theories, particularly cosmology theories in general.

Irrelevant. That was not taken into account at any time when I came to believe that Santa was real.

It's not irrelevant. By your logic, the whole thing was 'made up', and there was never a historical basis for the concept!

 

[Michael]

You have to play by their rules if you want to work with them.

As far as I can tell, the only rules that they play by are all oriented around pure denial. Anything and everything that doesn't jive with their preconceived dogma is simply ignored, dismissed, or swept under the rug. Just look at their 'standard candles' that aren't actually "standard" at all! They simply make up the rules as they go apparently.

The argument from authority is a fallacy.

Yet you rely on that technique almost exclusively? They do in fact use Alfven's maths to this very day, inappropriately so according to the author of MHD theory. Why misuse his maths while ignoring his published papers?

Well, then, begin away. Let's see you make some noise about it. Post it in every forum, in every thread on this site!

Wait - you already do that.

Never-mind.

Thanks for noticing.

 

[Michael]

Two separate sets of goalposts. Try for one, both, or neither.

The only one that is relevant is your personal choice of beliefs in relationship to the topic of God, like your personal need for 'falsification' about ideas related to God, and apparently no other topic. You're welcome to ignore all the evidence I've presented in that Empirical theory of God thread, but that is still your personal choice.

Free will is a completely different can of worms.

 

[Davian]

And to think you blame me for the use of strawmen.

You run on straw-men and false dichotomies like my car runs on gasoline.

The empirical difference is that roads and libraries are real and tangible things, <snip false dichotomy>

Move.

False words?

Scroll back.

Why should I care how it sounds to you personally? <snip yet another false dichotomy>

Do you have any desire to establish credibility with those you discuss things with in these forums?

Whereas you blatantly ridicule the value of the technique entirely, including the ability for it to result in a true positive, ever.

Strawman

• Davian
• Jun 1, 2014

But that's not the way it actually works in "science",

Special pleading.

The lab requirement is an example of your personal pet peeve, <snip false dichotomy>

Irony Meter - Heavy Duty

• Davian
• Feb 19, 2015

It's not irrelevant. <snip straw-man>

It is. It was not a factor in my belief in Santa.

 

[Davian]

As far as I can tell, <snip>

It can't be your fault, can it?

Yet you rely on that technique almost exclusively?

The rate at which I point out fallacies is directly proportional to the rate at which they are presented.

Thanks for noticing.

What I notice is that your ideas don't seem to get any traction, even here.

 

[Davian]

The only one that is relevant is your personal choice of beliefs in relationship to the topic of God, <snip straw-man>

The choice is not conscious.

Free will is a completely different can of worms.

 

[ScottA]

It doesn't explain anything. It is yet another assertion.

Get use to assertions. We can only translate for you, in your own limited language.

 

[Davian]

Get use to assertions.

Already there. We are neck deep in assertions around here.

We...

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

...can only translate for you,

Is "translate" an obscure term for "fabricate out of whole cloth"?

...in your own limited language.

English does have its limitations, but it is popular.

Do I have any other shortcomings that you feel that you should make me aware of?

 

[ScottA]

Already there. We are neck deep in assertions around here.
Do I have any other shortcomings that you feel that you should make me aware of?

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 see only two possibilities: 1) You're a sniper, a coward, taking potshots, 2) Secretly...you'd really like to play ball. Which is it?

 

[Michael]

The choice is not conscious.

Sure it is. You choose to believe or lack belief when exposed to new ideas, but either way it's a choice.