I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[AV1611VET]

Who counts the months and days of a person when they died?

No one that I know of.

Unless they're just making that point for the sake of making that point.

It's perfectly okay to truncate the mm/dd of a person's age at his death.

Your extra-Biblical addition of 'Not to Scale' to try and bypass the passage in Kings showing something you don't like is just: an extra-Biblical addition. Which is against Proverbs 30:6 - "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Fair enough.

Let's skip this NTS argument then.

YOU are the one adding to the Bible, when you pretend It is saying Pi equals three point zero zero zero.

I, on the other hand, am content to leave it as written, with no hint of addition.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No one that I know of.

Unless they're just making that point for the sake of making that point.

It's perfectly okay to truncate the mm/dd of a person's age at his death.



Fair enough.

Let's skip this NTS argument then.

YOU are the one adding to the Bible, when you pretend It is saying Pi equals three point zero zero zero.

I, on the other hand, am content to leave it as written, with no hint of addition.

Technically, it's not me saying it, since I find it one of the weirder things to argue about. I just dislike your 'Not To Scale' and constant additions to the Bible to try and prove your pretend points.

 

[AV1611VET]

Technically, it's not me saying it, since I find it one of the weirder things to argue about.

Some academians that post here make it a [pun] point [/pun] to bring it up.

Not to mention YouTube videos to that effect.

I just dislike your 'Not To Scale' ...

Fair enough.

I prefer the mm/dd argument now, as well as pointing out that they are the ones adding to the Bible.

... and constant additions to the Bible to try and prove your pretend points.

I'll bet you really dislike movies about the Bible then, don't you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Some academians that post here make it a [pun] point [/pun] to bring it up.

Not to mention YouTube videos to that effect.

Still not me though.

Fair enough.

I prefer the mm/dd argument, as well as pointing out that they are the ones adding to the Bible.

Not the same thing at all, but you do you and complain about molehills as mountains.

I'll bet you really dislike movies about the Bible then, don't you?

There's a difference between artistic licensing, which is it's own problem, and you saying things about the Bible which the Bible clearly does not say, especially when you cite chapter and verse that do not say what you claim they are saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not the same thing at all, but you do you and complain about molehills as mountains.

I don't consider harping about "Pi equals three, therefore the Bible is wrong" a molehill.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't consider harping about "Pi equals three, therefore the Bible is wrong" a molehill.

I do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do.

Like this one?

No, the Bible does say that Pi is 3. That's not a myth, it's a fact.
But, since as you say in the OP that the Ancient Jews were not mathematicians and that the Bible is not a maths textbook, such a fallible thing can be seen as human error, no?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like this one?

I genuinely do not remember writing that.
Huh. Although note that I don't say that the Bible is wrong because of that though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One's education surely doesn't make the entire person(?)
Ie: Wouldn't you agree that none of us is simply the net sum of the knowledge we've accumulated from our individual educations (?)

This point has nothing to do with your false comparison of me with another person. Notice too: I didn't imply that an education "makes the whole person." So, bringing that up as some sort of upshot is, to me, misplaced.

Side note: My purpose for listing a few books is to show from where I both draw my info in my own thinking and the general epistemological avenue by which I align my own viewpoint. I'm not impressed by singular arguments that individual people make. I want books worth of thought................ so I can see from where an individual sourced their supposed "ORIGINAL THINKING."

What's inconsistent about asking the source for their views?
Like you imply I should be able to find out who someone is by reading a bunch of books they once read?
How is that a consistent way of finding out an individual's perspective?

I'm not seeing how your first question about inconsistency is consistent with your second question. Are you trolling by use of misdirection?

Please clarify your intent here because until you do, I'm not going to bother answering your questions. It seems like it would be a waste of time for me to continue the conversation if you're going to resort to trolling tactics.

It still sounds like you consider yourself to be akin to an empty box waiting to be filled up with someone else's views(?)
I find that very perplexing.
Where do I find the individual 'you' amongst all of that?

You find "me" when you begin to ask specific questions by way of an academic comportment that shows good intent and solidarity with all other people who, like you, have intelligent minds.

I'm not here to play your game by your rules, and I especially refuse to play when I get the sense someone is here merely to undermine Christians in their beliefs (like a number of angry ex-Christians are in the mode of doing these days). Are you here on CF to merely talk about science rather than to dissuade Christians away from their faith?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not seeing how your first question about inconsistency is consistent with your second question. Are you trolling by use of misdirection?

Please clarify your intent here because until you do, I'm not going to bother answering your questions. It seems like it would be a waste of time for me to continue the conversation if you're going to resort to trolling tactics.

Intervening in the conversations of others runs the risk of being thought a busybody, or worse by both parties, but I doubt it will prove fatal for any of us.

In my opinion, formed over many years and exchanges, @SelfSim is many things, but he is not a troll. I am also confused by much the same ambiguities within your recent posts. His remarks seem to have touched a sensitive spot for you, inasmuch as you have interpreted his questions, seeking clarification, as being potential acts of trolling. I suspect all three of us share a distaste for trolling, so it would be ironic if you were to discontinue a dialogue on a faulty basis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Intervening in the conversations of others runs the risk of being thought a busybody, or worse by both parties, but I doubt it will prove fatal for any of us.

In my opinion, formed over many years and exchanges, @SelfSim is many things, but he is not a troll. I am also confused by much the same ambiguities within your recent posts. His remarks seem to have touched a sensitive spot for you, inasmuch as you have interpreted his questions, seeking clarification, as being potential acts of trolling. I suspect all three of us share a distaste for trolling, so it would be ironic if you were to discontinue a dialogue on a faulty basis.

Other than my frequent typos, what specifically is confusing within my posts that you and an assortment of others would like for me to clarify?

 

[Mountainmike]

A lot of claims there, MM. Any links?

These are big subjects . Nde, Eucharistic miracles, shroud research.
I’ll introduce the first.

On NDE / consciousness there are many medical researchers , hundreds of papers and scores of books. I suggested as a “ way in “ Pim van lommel wrote a book “ consciousness beyond life “ which is a review of the issues and backround on consciousness . He is a cardiologist, researcher and frequent speaker .

But as a way in he has done scores of videos on YouTube, a paper for lancet , and a prizewinning “ bigelow” essay
So Google “ pim van lommel YouTube nde “ lots to choose.

Specific nde Example cases to chase down , also on youtube are - the best instrumented case “ Pam Reynolds” operated on by Robert spetzler , researched in Michael sabom book,

so Google “ Pam Reynolds spetzler “ youtube , eg the bbc documentary

Sabom who researched the case speaks of reynolds in youtube videos too.

“ dentures man” referred by van lommel in videos papers and books.
lommel demonstrates in bilateral studies , that none of the sceptic claims like hypoxia or drugs stand scientific scrutiny

As I say, lots of research and researchers, so thats just a way in.

 

[Mountainmike]

"READ THE BOOK!" Or something of that effect.

Tell me. Where did you ever find a worthwhile one page explanation of electromagnetics? Nuclear physics or quantum theory? You didnt!

Alas as a mere mortal , I collected lever arch files of lecture notes and dozens of books on each one of them

Just niches like the paradoxical “quantum reality” or “through two doors at once “ use an entire book to explain Them. Electromagnetic leading to Maxwells equation derivation is a book in itself . As is the maths of an impulse.

So It’s sad you are so allergic to Books - even you might learn something if you ever buy one and read it!

 

[Larniavc]

These are big subjects . Nde, Eucharistic miracles, shroud research.
I’ll introduce the first.

On NDE / consciousness there are many medical researchers , hundreds of papers and scores of books. I suggested as a “ way in “ Pim van lommel wrote a book “ consciousness beyond life “ which is a review of the issues and backround on consciousness . He is a cardiologist, researcher and frequent speaker .

But as a way in he has done scores of videos on YouTube, a paper for lancet , and a prizewinning “ bigelow” essay
So Google “ pim van lommel YouTube nde “ lots to choose.

Specific nde Example cases to chase down , also on youtube are - the best instrumented case “ Pam Reynolds” operated on by Robert spetzler , researched in Michael sabom book,

so Google “ Pam Reynolds spetzler “ youtube , eg the bbc documentary

Sabom who researched the case speaks of reynolds in youtube videos too.

“ dentures man” referred by van lommel in videos papers and books.
lommel demonstrates in bilateral studies , that none of the sceptic claims like hypoxia or drugs stand scientific scrutiny

As I say, lots of research and researchers, so thats just a way in.

No links then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tell me. Where did you ever find a worthwhile one page explanation of electromagnetics? Nuclear physics or quantum theory? You didnt!

Alas as a mere mortal , I collected lever arch files of lecture notes and dozens of books on each one of them

Just niches like the paradoxical “quantum reality” or “through two doors at once “ use an entire book to explain Them. Electromagnetic leading to Maxwells equation derivation is a book in itself . As is the maths of an impulse.

So It’s sad you are so allergic to Books - even you might learn something if you ever buy one and read it!

Your condescending nature and tone is noted and discarded.

ETA: A thought struck me: how can I or anyone even know if the book/books is/are worth reading if you won't even quote from them?

 

[Ophiolite]

Other than my frequent typos, what specifically is confusing within my posts that you and an assortment of others would like for me to clarify?

I am just in from a tiring business day and it is past 21:00. I'll review the relevant posts tomorrow, so as to ensure precision and clarity in my response. In the meantime, typos rarely bother me and certainly not in this case.

 

[partinobodycular]

Specific nde Example cases to chase down , also on youtube are - the best instrumented case “ Pam Reynolds” operated on by Robert spetzler , researched in Michael sabom book,

No links then.

May I be of some assistance, you'll have to decide for yourself if it holds up to the scientific rigor of a Youtube! video however.

Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience

 

[Mountainmike]

Your condescending nature and tone is noted and discarded.

ETA: A thought struck me: how can I or anyone even know if the book/books is/are worth reading if you won't even quote from them?

But you do refuse to read books , and all complex subjects take books to describe.
Not condescending at all, just taking people as I find them.

On the last point : Amazon reviews are good!
And as I have pointed out, authors I name have many videos on YouTube .!

 

[Mountainmike]

No links then.

With respect.
Step 1/ go to YouTube
Step 2/ search “ Pim van lommel nde”
Lots to choose.

Or for his lancet article google “ pim van lommel lancet “
researchgate allows full text down load as a link on the page.
“Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain: A New Concept about the Continuity of Our Consciousness”


Or Google “ bbc the day I died “ , select videos, which refers Pam Renolds spetzler”
Michael Sabom discussing Reynolds is worthwhile .

You will not study nde with a single video Or book .
That should be enough to interest.
van lommel and Sabom ( or long, or parnia) are a way in.

I seriously suggest you read van lommels book.
Or Bellg if you want a quick read - enough to interest - but no stats.
Or Jeffrey long if you like stats,


Just as studying Bohr and Schrödinger are only a way into QM

 

[Larniavc]

With respect.
Step 1/ go to YouTube
Step 2/ search “ Pim van lommel nde”
Lots to choose.

Or for his lancet article google “ pim van lommel lancet “
researchgate allows full text down load as a link on the page.
“Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain: A New Concept about the Continuity of Our Consciousness”


Or Google “ bbc the day I died “ , select videos, which refers Pam Renolds spetzler”
Michael Sabom discussing Reynolds is worthwhile .

You will not study nde with a single video Or book .
That should be enough to interest.
van lommel and Sabom ( or long, or parnia) are a way in.

I seriously suggest you read van lommels book.
Or Bellg if you want a quick read - enough to interest - but no stats.
Or Jeffrey long if you like stats,


Just as studying Bohr and Schrödinger are only a way into QM

No links then.