Blind

[Michael]

I did that for the first 22 years of my life. I found nothing.

You claim to have found it. So show us.

So unlike Helen Keller, you remain spiritually blind. Show us you've made any real effort to find anything.

 

[Michael]

You have been shown the empirical evidence, and you run away from it. Sorry, can't help you.

You've shown me nothing to run from, and nothing based on empirical experimentation. You've shown me nothing but a pure affirming the consequent fallacy based on three supernatural invisible sky entities, maybe four if we start including curvatons to fix your Planck data set fiasco.

 

[Coelo]

start a semantics fight?

It all comes down to if you use God's dictionary or the devil's dictionary. The words are all the same, it just depends on how you define them.

 

[Loudmouth]

So unlike Helen Keller, you remain spiritually blind. Show us you've made any real effort to find anything.

First you have to show that something exists before you can accuse people of being blind.

 

[Loudmouth]

It all comes down to if you use God's dictionary or the devil's dictionary. The words are all the same, it just depends on how you define them.

So a game of semantics.

 

[Loudmouth]

You've shown me nothing to run from,

And that is a flat out lie.

 

[Michael]

And that is a flat out lie.

It's a flat out lie that you've ever *qualified* your claims in controlled experimentation.

At least Helen Keller's experiences of "God" took place on Earth.

 

[quatona]

It all comes down to if you use God's dictionary or the devil's dictionary.

Ok, now I know where you´re coming from.
Calling the blind "handicapped" is from God´s dictionary and calling them "different" is from the devil´s dictionary.
If that´s the point you meant to drive home when addressing my posts it´s now clear to me why your responses didn´t strke me as particularly, err, responsive.
Thank you and good bye.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a flat out lie that you've ever *qualified* your claims in controlled experimentation.

You have been shown mountains of empirical evidence. You run away from it with excuses like the above. You continue to lie to everyone about being presented evidence. That is what crackpots do, lie about the evidence and run away from it just like you do.

 

[Michael]

First you have to show that something exists before you can accuse people of being blind.

I just cited an example of someone what had direct experiences of God even before she developed the use of language.

 

[Coelo]

I did that for the first 22 years of my life. I found nothing.

I can only share with you my experance. I was looking for a God that that I had created. I did not find God until I found out that He created me.

You claim to have found it. So show us.

I can not do it for you, you have to do it yourself. The Bible says: Seek and you shall find. If your not finding then your not seeking.

Even after I found God I started to listen to people and that got me confused. God reconciles us with people. Jesus also reconciles us with the Father so that we can have an actual relationship with Him. We do not need anyone to interceed for us. We deal direct with the Father ourselves. The Holy Spirit of God was given at Pentecost to guide us and lead us into all truth.

We can do things like pray for people for healing. But when it comes to actually having your own relationship with God, then that is between you and Him.

 

[Michael]

You have been shown mountains of empirical evidence.

Not a bit of your evidence is "empirical" in nature, it's an affirming the consequent fallacy. You can't associate photon redshift in controlled experimentation with your various claims about cause.

You run away from it with excuses like the above. You continue to lie to everyone about being presented evidence. That is what crackpots do, lie about the evidence and run away from it just like you do.

There you go again, attacking the messenger simply because your invisible sky deities are more impotent on Earth than any religious concept of God. They can't redshift a single photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. At least "God" has an effect on humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can only share with you my experance.

Hence the problem. It is an entirely subjective experience. Another person will claim that they experienced an entirely different deity, or no deity at all. In fact, people's testimony of their experience with other deities will not convince you, I am sure.

What we are asking for is evidence that exists outside of completely subjective experiences.

I can not do it for you, you have to do it yourself.

Can you think of a single real thing where this is the case?

The Bible says: Seek and you shall find. If your not finding then your not seeking.

That's an awfully tight circle you have.

If you don't see Leprechauns it's because you haven't looked for Leprechauns. Once you truly open your eyes to the possibility of Leprechauns then you will see them. Does that sound like a convincing argument?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not a bit of your evidence is "empirical" in nature,

Another flat out lie. Do you really think you can get away with them?

You can't associate photon redshift in controlled experimentation with your various claims about cause.

Empirical evidence exists outside of the lab, Michael. How many times have you been told this? Only crackpots act this way.

There you go again, attacking the messenger simply because your invisible sky deities are more impotent on Earth than any religious concept of God. They can't redshift a single photon in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. At least "God" has an effect on humans.

Quit acting like a crackpot and I will stop calling you a crackpot. Let's sum the crackpottery, shall we?

1. Empirical evidence can only be observed in the lab.
2. The entire field of science is wrong, and I am right even though I have no training in the field and have done no research in the field.
3. My views are being suppressed.

I could keep going if you want.

 

[Michael]

That's an awfully tight circle you have.

If you don't see Leprechauns it's because you haven't looked for Leprechauns. Once you truly open your eyes to the possibility of Leprechauns then you will see them. Does that sound like a convincing argument?

How ironic considering it's coming from a Lambda-CDM proponent.

 

[Loudmouth]

How ironic considering it's coming from a Lambda-CDM proponent.

This thread isn't about your obsession with plasma cosmology.

 

[Michael]

Another flat out lie. Do you really think you can get away with them?

Until you can cite a source of dark energy, explain how to control it, and show that it has some effect on photons, the only one lying is you. Ditto for inflation. Ditto for exotic matter claims. How many SUSY claims have been falsified at LHC already?

Empirical evidence exists outside of the lab, Michael. How many times have you been told this? Only crackpots act this way.

It's hysterical you want empirical evidence of God, but you'll accept any ol claim related to space.

Quit acting like a crackpot and I will stop calling you a crackpot. Let's sum the crackpottery, shall we?

Sure right after the "evil" evangelical atheist stops acting 'evil'. Sheesh!

1. Empirical evidence can only be observed in the lab.

But you refuse to accept evidence from outside of yourself, like Helen Keller. Ironic.

2. The entire field of science is wrong,

Just some beliefs in astronomy, not all science. Astronomers have been wrong in the past too, including that whole epicycle fiasco. Now their epicycles contain supernatural constructs.

and I am right

I am? I simply "lack faith' in your supernatural constructs.

even though I have no training in the field and have done no research in the field.

That's a flat out lie on your part. Have you even read a single textbook on plasma physics yet?

3. My views are being suppressed.

A multimillion degree plasma is not a "hot gas". Spin the dishonesty all you like, but plasmas and gasses are not the same thing.

I could keep going if you want.

All you're demonstrating is how spiritually and scientifically blind you are.

 

[Loudmouth]

Until you can cite a source of dark energy,

I have already cited the evidence supporting dark energy time after time after time, as have others. You run away from the evidence. You are the one who is blind.

It's hysterical you want empirical evidence of God, but you'll accept any ol claim related to space.

I only accept those that are supported by evidence.

But you refuse to accept evidence from outside of yourself, like Helen Keller. Ironic.

I accept all evidence outside of myself. What I don't accept are subjective experiences and claims backed by zero evidence.

Just some beliefs in astronomy, not all science. Astronomers have been wrong in the past too, including that whole epicycle fiasco. Now their epicycles contain supernatural constructs.

But only you know the truth, and every astronomer is wrong, and your website even says so. Crackpot much?

I am? I simply "lack faith' in your supernatural constructs.

Nothing supernatural about them. We have empirical evidence for them.

That's a flat out lie on your part. Have you even read a single textbook on plasma physics yet?

It doesn't take a textbook to find your lies.

A multimillion degree plasma is not a "hot gas". Spin the dishonesty all you like, but plasmas and gasses are not the same thing.

What does this have to do with anything?

All you're demonstrating is how spiritually and scientifically blind you are.

Says the person who can't provide evidence for the spiritual, and ignores mountains of evidence in astronomy.

 

[Michael]

I have already cited the evidence supporting dark energy time after time after time, as have others. You run away from the evidence. You are the one who is blind.

It's ironic that you're handwaving away at that Helen Keller experience of God, choosing to be willfully "spiritually blind" by choice apparently.

Meanwhile you cannot demonstrate any controlled cause/effect relationship between light (photon redshift) and any of your invisible friends. You've effectively blinded *yourself*, not only to spiritual experiences of awareness, but you've blinded yourself to the value of empirical physics as well.

I won't even discuss anymore of the astronomy aspects in this thread and allow you to run away from that data related to Helen Keller. It's all one giant diversion from the point of this thread. Whereas Helen was only physically blind, you're both spiritually blind and blind to the value of empirical lab tested physics, by choice!

 

[Loudmouth]

It's ironic that you're handwaving away at that Helen Keller experience of God, choosing to be willfully "spiritually blind" by choice apparently.

Show me evidence that Hellen Keller experienced God.

Meanwhile you cannot demonstrate any controlled cause/effect relationship between light (photon redshift) and any of your invisible friends.

Already done multiple times. You run away from it.

I won't even discuss anymore of the astronomy aspects in this thread and allow you to run away from that data related to Helen Keller.

Beliefs are not data.