You don't know then. Physics is for the fishbowl. When you try to apply it to all of the created universe you engage in circular reasoning. You look at light in the fishbowl here from stars. You watch how it unfolds and exists in our space and time. You then try to declare that is the way it exists and is in the distant created universe. That is an exercise in ignorance. I would not have a problem with it if it is offered as such and not offered as some gospel that overrides the gospel of God.Because physics.
We've had this discussion before. There's no point repeating it - I refer you to my previous answers.You don't know then. Physics is for the fishbowl. When you try to apply it to all of the created universe you engage in circular reasoning. You look at light in the fishbowl here from stars. You watch how it unfolds and exists in our space and time. You then try to declare that is the way it exists and is in the distant created universe. That is an exercise in ignorance. I would not have a problem with it if it is offered as such and not offered as some gospel that overrides the gospel of God.
Not really, how would I know exactly what things man can't understand. The bible already mentioned time...the beginning from the end. It also mentioned God's ways. Science doesn't know what God does or when or how. What more do you want?So you can't actually give me any examples then.
No. I have zero need for science to be my big guru and go to and know it all. Really. I have absolutely no illusions that science does or should know anything important about origins, creation, God, history, etc.If you want science to answer those questions, you must first show that these are valid questions
. It makes no sense to try to determine where God lives or where he came from if he doesn't actually exist. So please provide conclusive evidence that he exists, otherwise the question makes about as much sense as trying to figure out where Darth Vader lives, or where Voldemort lives.
I just referred to them in the post you replied to. You think that because atoms decay here and light behaves a certain way here etc etc etc...that this also has to hold true for where the light originated. Sorry, that is ridiculously religious. Refer to this post any time you want to bring up the issue, and apply it to your previous posts. Cheers.We've had this discussion before. There's no point repeating it - I refer you to my previous answers.
Right, that's what I mean. If what you say is true, and blue shifting should be seen in all quadrants of the universe, and it is not...that would be a lack of evidence. If they did claim it should exist, why would they not produce evidence?it does indeed, but only from sources of radiation from within our local cluster..... So if the CMB contains blue shift?????
And yet you are convinced with no testable evidence that expansion is the cause of cosmological redshift. While using the Doppler claim of velocity, while saying the velocity is not actually a velocity.....
It is not your place to tell me that I lack the required knowledge. It's actually very rude of you.
And you are wrong anyway. Any testable evidence which can be verified will convince me.
Except when the river magically expands in all directions in analogy to your magic expanding space, yes?
And yet you only want to consider the ants absolute motion as being of any concern, while claiming it is substantive, which would mean any motion at all has an affect.
Its the same, you just refuse to apply the same analogy that the river is flowing in all directions at an increasing rate....
I could say the same about your balloon, since there are ants above and below the balloon surface. Although you seemed to have no problem with understanding it wasnt reality, just analogy, yet can't understand an analogy of a river flowing in all directions as a balloon surface moves in all direction.. except inwards, yet the reality would require just that....
You seem to conveniently accept only the analogies you choose to.
Not really, how would I know exactly what things man can't understand. The bible already mentioned time...the beginning from the end. It also mentioned God's ways. Science doesn't know what God does or when or how. What more do you want?
No. I have zero need for science to be my big guru and go to and know it all. Really. I have absolutely no illusions that science does or should know anything important about origins, creation, God, history, etc.
Wrong thread.
Right and since Scripture and history do not mention your invented word either, that leaves no support. If you chose to limit reality to what poor little manscience knows about or can deal with, that is up to you. I could not swim in such a shallow puddle.And I can say that science can't understand Schmeezles. That doesn't mean that Schmeezles are real
Either God and His word are right and man can't know, or not.So you;ve decided that you'd rather put the blame on science when it can't explain something you can't even show is true?
If you reject all records beyond last week as well as the sum experience of mankind with the supernatural, and want to live in a shoebox of natural present world science only, don't blame others or pretend nothing else exists.Nah, this is the right thread. If you want to say science is flawed because it can't explain something, then you must show that the thing you are talking about exists.
I agree. Just as a cardboard box with a pin hole in it to allow light in is a way to study light. However, when one cannot see beyond that box and clearly does not want to include as reality anything outside that box...it sets off alarm bells.Because science is a way to study reality.
Only what fit's in it's box and abilities and limits. That is so little of the whole picture that it is basically irrelevant.If something is real, then science is a good tool to study it.
Right and since Scripture and history do not mention your invented word either, that leaves no support. If you chose to limit reality to what poor little manscience knows about or can deal with, that is up to you. I could not swim in such a shallow puddle.
Either God and His word are right and man can't know, or not.
If you reject all records beyond last week as well as the sum experience of mankind with the supernatural, and want to live in a shoebox of natural present world science only, don't blame others or pretend nothing else exists.
I agree. Just as a cardboard box with a pin hole in it to allow light in is a way to study light. However, when one cannot see beyond that box and clearly does not want to include as reality anything outside that box...it sets off alarm bells.
Only what fit's in it's box and abilities and limits. That is so little of the whole picture that it is basically irrelevant.
I would think that for most Christians or at least a great proportion, God and His word are the default. If you want to try and toss it out and override and overrule it, you need some heavy artillery intellectually, factually, and something with clear and strong and real evidence.You really got stop just assuming that things are true just because you have decided they are true.
Or false?So just because lots of people talk about it and write about it, it must be true?
That seems like a statement from one who never ventured outside the box. The only issue is whether one wants to venture out, or settle I guess.Of course, you must show that there is actually something outside the box.
The way that something outside the box is seen is not by religiously staying inside the box and shutting all portals to reality outside that confine.And the burden of showing that there is something outside the box falls on you.
Offering hit and run religious posts every year that you can't defend or apparently comprehend in depth is actually not presenting evidence.Aside from the fact that you apparently lack the knowledge to understand the evidence I present (which is why I no longer bother trying to present it to you)
The evidence for Christ and Scripture has run through history like a bull in a china shop. Missing it takes a lot of effort!, it's simply ridiculous to claim that a lack of evidence for one thing is automatically evidence of it's opposite.
False. "Most Christians or at least a great proportion" Believe that the bible is the word of God, but not that Genesis must be 100% accurate literal history. There are something liike two billiion Christians worldwide, but only an hundred million or so are creationists.I would think that for most Christians or at least a great proportion, God and His word are the default. If you want to try and toss it out and override and overrule it, you need some heavy artillery intellectually, factually, and something with clear and strong and real evidence.
Or false?
Whatever, you are welcome to your religion. It is sure not mine.False. "Most Christians or at least a great proportion" Believe that the bible is the word of God, but not that Genesis must be 100% accurate literal history. There are something liike two billiion Christians worldwide, but only an hundred million or so are creationists.
So long as you keep in mind that your version of Christianity is not necessarily "better" or "truer" than anybody else's. Christians are generally united by the tenets of the Nicene Creed (and that's how they are defined in this forum, BTW). You can believe what you like about the Bible, but the rest of us don't have to.Whatever, you are welcome to your religion. It is sure not mine.
I would think that for most Christians or at least a great proportion, God and His word are the default. If you want to try and toss it out and override and overrule it, you need some heavy artillery intellectually, factually, and something with clear and strong and real evidence.
Or false?
That seems like a statement from one who never ventured outside the box. The only issue is whether one wants to venture out, or settle I guess.
The way that something outside the box is seen is not by religiously staying inside the box and shutting all portals to reality outside that confine.
Offering hit and run religious posts every year that you can't defend or apparently comprehend in depth is actually not presenting evidence.
The evidence for Christ and Scripture has run through history like a bull in a china shop. Missing it takes a lot of effort!
My beliefs carry importance to me.Why? You think that just because it is the belief you hold to that it carries some kind of extra importance? Just to you, not to me. Doesn't matter what it is, you gotta have proof before you can convince me it's real.
Like science.Yes, or false. That was entirely my point. Something that lots of people think is true can actually be false.
Ditto. Obviously Christians who believe have found evidences they needed. Those evidences are outside the box of science.That's why we look for evidence to support the claim.
Science has had effects also..WOMD, pollution, sex changes, lobotomies, and some good things also. In both cases the reason we have effects is because there is a cause.While I can't deny the fact that Christianity has had a huge effect of the world, that does not mean that Christian beliefs are correct.
I don't expect those who take the bible as a book of wild tales from which some supposed good lessons can be gleaned, to value the beliefs of those who hold it in higher esteem as superior.So long as you keep in mind that your version of Christianity is not necessarily "better" or "truer" than anybody else's. Christians are generally united by the tenets of the Nicene Creed (and that's how they are defined in this forum, BTW). You can believe what you like about the Bible, but the rest of us don't have to.
Yes, not even if God himself wrote it.I don't expect those who take the bible as a book of wild tales from which some supposed good lessons can be gleaned, to value the beliefs of those who hold it in higher esteem as superior.
My beliefs carry importance to me.
Like science.
Ditto. Obviously Christians who believe have found evidences they needed. Those evidences are outside the box of science.
Science has had effects also..WOMD, pollution, sex changes, lobotomies, and some good things also. In both cases the reason we have effects is because there is a cause.
And don't expect me to show you anything when you have closed off anything outside the box.Just don't expect me to share your belief that they are important if you can't show me why.
Absurdly false, since science cannot begin to test anything spiritual. That is like asking an ant to test for conditions on the space station from under an anthill.True. So how do we tell which positions are valid?
Answer: We look for ways to TEST them. And if lots of people can put something to the test and they consistently get the same result, then maybe that has something going for it.
In prophesy we are in a great place, most bible prophesy is history now. When it comes to the ability of science to check, you are less than nowhere...and losing ground fast.Yes, obviously they did find something that was enough to convince them. But when it comes to evidence that can be double checked and verified, where are we then?
What was the test for some first lifeform? There is a lot in the bible that does not just involve future and heaven.Christianity says, "If you believe in God, you will go to Heaven." But there's no way to test this, is there. How do you conduct a census for Heaven? No, you can't check it at all. All you can do is look at other claims made by Christianity and go by what that says. All claims, no testable evidence.
And don't expect me to show you anything when you have closed off anything outside the box.
Absurdly false, since science cannot begin to test anything spiritual. That is like asking an ant to test for conditions on the space station from under an anthill.
In prophesy we are in a great place, most bible prophesy is history now. When it comes to the ability of science to check, you are less than nowhere...and losing ground fast.
What was the test for some first lifeform? There is a lot in the bible that does not just involve future and heaven.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?