Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

joinfree said:

Science is not its methods.

Click to expand...

I didn´t say it was.

The methods are the convenient tools of Science. But the Science is the Quest For Truth with all sinless methods and sinless ways.

Click to expand...

When posters start randomly capitalizing words in cryptic sentences I lose interest.

joinfree said:

Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."?!

Click to expand...

Actually, yes, "argument" is a word used in that context. Might be considered archaic in school today, but when I was in school, yep.

joinfree said:

Dear friend, there are two kinds of people in this world: pagans and theists.

Click to expand...

I´m neither.

joinfree said:

What are the guiding motives in your Life? If they are not the God, then they are the false gods of PAGANISM.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it´s cute when you try to tell me what I believe.
Now maybe back to your OP question and my response?

joinfree said:

Dear friend, there are two kinds of people in this world: pagans and theists.

Click to expand...

Pagans ARE theists. They're just people with theistic beliefs that aren't Abrahimic monotheism.

joinfree said:

What are the guiding motives in your Life? If they are not the God, then they are the false gods of PAGANISM.

Click to expand...

Why do you do that?

You are pretending to ask someone a question... but instead of waiting to get an answer - and at least considering this answer - you give your own response.

Why are you doing that? What do you think you will achive with that? Do you think that "proclaiming the truth" will give you some brownie points with you deity? Do you think that the person you talk to will suddenly say: "You are right. It goes against everything I hold dear. It goes against anything I every thought. But you are right, and I will now bow my head and accept Jesus into my life."

Gene2memE said:

Pagans ARE theists. They're just people with theistic beliefs that aren't Abrahimic monotheism.

Click to expand...

I think the habit of Christians to call all non-Christians "pagans" goes back to the time when Christian emperors conquered European countries with their - back then - pagan beliefs.

I understand what your saying. Some time ago 3 physicist won the Nobel prize for their "proof" that the expansion of the universe was increasing over time. In 2016 ,with much more data to go on , the Oxford University Physics Department and Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen proved that wrong. Meaning there is now "proof" contradicting the "proof" that won 3 people the Nobel prize. Let me add this link if you want to read up on it.
Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
Furthermore I made a video not long ago claiming to have "proof" that a specific bible prophecy was in fact coming true and it even pertains to the expanding universe. Let me add a link to that video.
The Nobel prize people had faith that the proof was true but it turns out it wasn't. I personally have no faith in the proofs of evolution theory. The Holy Bible is proof for approximately 2.4 billion people worldwide. I posted a video stating there was proof that bible prophecy is coming true.

I don't know who your actually talking about stating that Christians don't have proof but that's wrong. The point being is that most if not all proof requires faith.

joinfree said:

Why then so much time is spent and so much (fake?) prayers are made in the church of Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Click to expand...

Lol!

You think atheists really do believe in the FSM?
Did nobody inform you that the FSM is a parody on religion?

joinfree said:

What are the guiding motives in your Life? If they are not the God, then they are the false gods of PAGANISM.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in any god. False or otherwise.

joinfree said:

The Paganism is calling the black as "white", and white as black. But the theism is the way of Truth. A pagan only trolls like: "General Relativity is wrong", theist says: "I have reasons to know, what GR is right."

Click to expand...

What does that even mean? It's like you're just stringing random words together.

joinfree said:

There are two ways in life: 1) to follow the Truth, and the God knows the Truth, 2) to not follow the Truth.

Click to expand...

Truth is demonstrable. So far you're doing a pretty awful job at demonstrating that any of your claims should be considered true.

Freodin said:

The yellow one.

Click to expand...

That's completely non-responsive to my question. I'll just have to assume that you made that claim up, and you can't support your erroneous claim, hence the blatant dodge of my question.

Seriously? You claim that your theory is totally empirical, you ask me to point out about "deviations" of EU/PC theory... something I never mentioned or implied...

Click to expand...

Er, perhaps you forgot this comment?:

EU/PC theory is not restricted to empirically demonstrated claims.

Click to expand...

What the heck were you mentioning or implying then with that sentence?

and then you are going how ALL cosmological theories are not completely empirical.

Really?

Click to expand...

No, not really. Apparently that's just something *else* that you "heard" which I didn't actually say. I simply pointed out that human beings cannot control cosmological events and therefore all cosmology theories will sometimes require some amount of subjective interpretation. For instance, one might have to decide if the observation in question is related to gravity, or EM fields or whatever. That's completely different than simply *making up* new forces of nature to suit yourself as is the case with other, more scientifically "popular" cosmology theories. I did not claim that the lack of control issue, or any scaling issue by itself makes any cosmology theory less than empirical all by itself. That was your own 'spin' on my comments.

No, it is not the same problem. That is the whole point.
The problem with the "human factor" exists. But while in one system this problem is recognized and tried to alleviate, the other system ignores / plays it down.

Click to expand...

Plays it down? I don't think so. LCDM doesn't just include *one* non-empirically demonstrated (in the lab) form of matter or energy, it actually requires *four* such "leaps of faith" in the 'unseen' (in the lab). Even most religions only require *one* supernatural construct, not four. How the heck do you figure that anyone "tried to alleviate" or minimize the use of metaphysics in LCDM?

You seem to making a lot of claims that don't seem to jive with reality which is rather unusual for you actually.

This is the primary difference? Not the "transcendent" part that is included in Panentheism, but not in Pantheism? Wow, I never knew that!

Click to expand...

It's the primary difference in terms of what each theory might "predict" about the human condition on Earth which is what we were discussing. Man, you've been twisting my sentences like a pretzel today.

But I have to ask: how does Panentheism necessarily imply a "personal" interaction process between God and man?

Click to expand...

"How" in terms of actual physics, or how in terms of theology?

You are not. That is the point.

Click to expand...

Um, we seem to be making the same point then.

So, what do you mean by the term "nature"?
"God is nature"... that is the starting point. So, what is "not-nature"? Are these "building blocks" nature? Are you nature?

Click to expand...

I do not know of anything, nor can I observe anything which is not a part of nature, or part of the universe. I am a *part* of nature, but I'm certainly not the entire thing.

No. Every axiom is untestable, but not everything untestable is an axiom. That is not too difficult to understand, is it?`

Click to expand...

Space expansion is "untestable" in the lab, in the solar system, in the galaxy, or in the galaxy cluster. Does that make the "space expansion" claim an 'axiom' or a statement of faith? It seems to be a core *assumption* of LCDM, but it's never happened in the lab and I can't prove a negative.

Let's see... "the effect is seen, the cause might be not, but we can extrapolate the cause from the effect, bla bla bla."

Click to expand...

Here's where there's a key empirical difference between different ideas. "Expanding objects" is something that cause photon redshift in the lab, so an 'expanding object" explanation for the redshift is an "empirical" option to explain redshift, even if it's not he correct explanation. Likewise "inelastic scattering" is also an "empirical" explanation for that observation, which again does not guarantee is the correct or *only* explanation. It could even be a "combo" deal, which would also still be an "empirical" solution.

On the *other hand*, the claim "space expansion did it" is *not* an empirical "cause" of photon redshift on Earth, so it's nothing more than a metaphysical solution to the observation. I can't "extrapolate" a supernatural solution to the observation, I can only *allege* something like that is the "cause" of photon redshift *without* having any actual empirical evidence to support it. The observation itself doesn't have a preferred solution. Green pixies might be the 'cause' too. I can stick with empirical solutions, or I can just start making up a supposed "solution" on a personal whim without respect to what we observe in the lab.

See above. If you think you need to chide me for using a term, when the only occurance I used it was to critizise a poster who incorrectly in a religious setting, you are doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

I wasn't chiding you personally. Man, you seem to be a bit 'touchy' in that last post.

The pain and the suffering AFTER dying, in the resurrection to shame and judgment , for each one who does not repent ,

would take thousands of books(maybe more than that) to describe,

being millions of times worse(maybe more) than mankind's worse holocausts and tortures over the last 6000 years, .

So, not doing anything is (or seems) easy,
....... for now.

"woe to those who are at ease now", ...... YHWH'S WORD.

joinfree said:

So, we are inviting unbelievers to argue (the word "argue" is like the "argu-ment").

Click to expand...

Unbelief forces people to think like scientists; which then reinforces their unbelief.

For the very few scientists of the world who are born again, their science forces them to take a myopic view of the Scriptures, forcing them to suspect, reject, and/or allegorize a good portion of It.

Their (born again scientists) cognitive dissonance is so great, I've seen them overlook basic doctrine and not even realize what they're saying.

My favorite example is Charles Darwin.

According to the Lady Hope Story, Mr. Darwin is in Heaven now.

But even born again scientists prefer to believe the Lady Hope Story is a lie, meaning Mr. Darwin is in Hell now.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

joinfree said:

There are two ways in life: 1) to follow the Truth, and the God knows the Truth, 2) to not follow the Truth.

Click to expand...

Feel free to notify me when you are done preaching and want to discuss the question you raised in the OP.