You believe that they do not exist, and have no evidence for your belief then. OK. Not really so impressive.No I don't.
So you need to demonstrate they exist before I am going to take your claims about them seriously.
Upvote
0
You believe that they do not exist, and have no evidence for your belief then. OK. Not really so impressive.No I don't.
So you need to demonstrate they exist before I am going to take your claims about them seriously.
No one made up spirits, good or bad. They are found in Scripture. You can deny for no reason at all, or you can respect the overwhelming majority of people's experiences and beliefs.So lemme get this straight.
You can make up any wild claims you want, and you don't have to provide any evidence at all.
Not really. When offering an unsupported opinion on demons, not sure anyone much cares.But I have to provide evidence for my claims, as well as provide evidence against your claims.
No such thing as a burden of proof in the realm of physical evidence when talking about the spiritual. There is the burden of denial or belief.Sorry, bucko, the burden of proof is on you. If you are going to make your claims without evidence, then I'm going to dismiss them without evidence.
What is the point of bring science into it, if it cannot discern spiritual things but only see the effects in the physical?So what's the point of bringing religion into this then? If it can't do the job as well as medicine, if it is inferior in every way in the treatment of mental illness, what's the point of it?
No. You cannot kill God or angels, or even demons."...through active participation in congregations..."
So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results.
Or they could send you somewhere...whatever.We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.
You believe that they do not exist, and have no evidence for your belief then.
Don't forget that the idea that 'empty' spacetime contained 'vacuum energy' had been around long before the accelerating expansion was discovered (since the mid-'60s if memory serves), based on the energy of quantum field excitations as 'virtual particles' - remember the Cosmological Constant Problem described by Zel'dovich around 1967, which is still unsolved today? Whether you get there via GR or QM, scalar vacuum energy is not new or unnatural. You can think of it as work done on spacetime as it expands.
Naturally, the confused would not think so.There is definitely some confusion. I'm just not so sure it's on my side of the fence.
Here is how it works. If you claim there are no spirits, you need support. If people claim there are, they need support. They have support obviously. It is just not the sort you prefer to include in your little world.Once again, not how the burden of proof works.
Why is it creationists on this forum seem to struggle with this..?
Here is how it works. If you claim there are no spirits, you need support. If people claim there are, they need support. They have support obviously. It is just not the sort you prefer to include in your little world.
And that support comes from objective evidence of how one arrives at the meaning of the word 'exist'.Only a positive assertion, like "Faeries definitely do not exist" would require support.
Naturally, the confused would not think so.
Here is how it works. If you claim there are no spirits, you need support.
As I said, it remains an unsolved problem - renormalization-type approaches appear not to be possible. The point was that it's been an established issue for 50 years, and the cosmological constant has been around for over 100 years. Neither are new or in any way 'supernatural'.Of course when we try to use QM to predict the energy state of the vacuum, it's off by something like 120 orders of magnitude.
The Worst Theoretical Prediction in the History of Physics | RealClearScience
How the heck is it then possible test/falsify a concept if it's "predictions' are off by such wide margins and such a massively failed "test" isn't considered a falsification of the idea?
Likewise new SN1A studies undermine the original evidence of acceleration entirely.
The one in the bible? But that's from the past, and (according to you) there is no way of testing the past. So why would anyone accept it as being correct?I'll go with God's definition, thanks.
As I said, it remains an unsolved problem - renormalization-type approaches appear not to be possible. The point was that it's been an established issue for 50 years, and the cosmological constant has been around for over 100 years. Neither are new or in any way 'supernatural'.
Whether the acceleration is verified or falsified is currently moot and irrelevant to spurious claims of unnaturalness or the supernatural.
If you claim spirits do not exist, you would be asked to provide reasons and evidence.Typically a "lack of belief" in something doesn't require support. For instance I'm not obligated to provide evidence that faeries do not exist simply because I lack belief in them.
Only a positive assertion, like "Faeries definitely do not exist" would require support.
You/she cannot support any unbelief therefore it has no merit.
That's not what she said though. She simply said she didn't believe in them. If you want to demonstrate they exist, you need to support that claim. You're the one making the positive claim, you need to support it.
Instead, what you're doing is engaging in the fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.
And we all know why you're doing that; like everything else you've posted in this this thread, you're unable to support your claims.
How do you propose to 'test' the past and future exactly? The bible is tested and true. What it says about the past is now history.The one in the bible? But that's from the past, and (according to you) there is no way of testing the past. So why would anyone accept it as being correct?
You/she cannot support any unbelief therefore it has no merit.
I do not care one whit what you reject. You will not claim here that spirits are not real. You can claim that you reject for no reason...whatever you like. Or that you do not believe in history or whatever for no reason at all. Great. Not sure who would care.Your attempts to shift the burden of proof have been duly noted and rejected.
Any time you want to offer more than a bunch of unsupported assertions, feel free.
I think the idea would be to have some position on why evidence of spirits is connected to science, looking at the OP. My position is that science is too small to be able to deal with it. All evidence would fall outside its domain.Apparently you do. Otherwise why are we even having this conversation?