Blind

[Michael]

Show me evidence that Hellen Keller experienced God.

Show me that she didn't. Spiritual blindness in your case is a *choice*.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me that she didn't.

It is not my job to disprove your empty claims. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Spiritual blindness in your case is a *choice*.

First you need to show that there is something to be blind to.

 

[Michael]

It is not my job to disprove your empty claims.

They were not my claims to start with, nor were they "empty". Your choices are entirely subjective as always.

 

[Loudmouth]

They were not my claims to start with, nor were they "empty". Your choices are entirely subjective as always.

Then show me the evidence that Hellen Keller experienced God, or are you claiming that Hellen Keller did not experience God?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Please point me to the laboratory evidence you have that has observed space expanding or bending? Please point me to the dark matter particle you have studied in the lab?

In the lab it takes electrical currents and plasma to create plasma jets, but of course in space it is spinning black holes that do it. That's not what it took in the lab.


https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/plasmaphysics/Public/AmplefordPhD.pdf

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

No, observations and theory exist outside the lab. In science these theories must be testable, be able to be falsified to be considered a theory. Observations may be interpreted many ways. You say black holes cause galactic jets, I say electrical currents and electric fields cause it, which is backed by laboratory evidence.

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.

Quit ignoring 99% of the universe and maybe we will stop calling what you proclaim as science as nothing more than pseudoscience. Stop asking me to believe in Farie Dust and to ignore like you, 99% of the evidence. That you believe that one can ignore plasma, 99% of the universe, then when your math doesn't fit observations you make up 96% to explain the 99% you ignored is a valid theory is beyond comprehension. You should be embarrased that your science requires belief in more Fairie Dust entities than my religion.

 

[Coelo]

Then show me the evidence that Hellen Keller experienced God,

What is your alternate explanation? If it was not God that she experienced then what did she experience. Usually when people try to produce an alternate explanation, they pretty much fail at the attempt.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is your alternate explanation? If it was not God that she experienced then what did she experience. Usually when people try to produce an alternate explanation, they pretty much fail at the attempt.

I don't know what Hellen Keller experienced. "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it", in case you were wondering. Other people are claiming that they do know what she experienced. I am asking for evidence that backs their claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please point me to the laboratory evidence you have that has observed space expanding or bending?

There is this big huge universe that exists outside of the lab. You should check it out.

Quit ignoring 99% of the universe

I'm not.

Stop asking me to believe in Farie Dust

I'm asking you to look at the evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is this big huge universe that exists outside of the lab. You should check it out.

I have, and we observe plasma and electrical currents everywhere. maybe you should open your eyes and take The View Master off.

They just *finally* started studying it.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

How much evidence do you need that it is not an electrically neutral environment out there?

I'm asking you to look at the evidence.

Exactly, that's all we ask, that you look at the evidence.

The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist

Just read *plasma* everywhere you see the words *hot gas, ionized gas* and then go figure out what a plasma is. But you should know already unless you are ignoring 99% of the universe.

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

But of course your math only explained 1% of the universe (solar system and center of galaxies where all was in close proximity) then utterly failed in the other 99% that was spread out over vast distances. Where protons, electrons and ions were not bound, but free to move in current pathways. So when your math failed did you look at the 99% you ignored as believed to be electrically neutral? No, instead you hypothesized more electrically inert entities in an attempt to fudge the math back on course.

But when science finally figured out that 99% of the universe was plasma, an electrically active medium, did they then consider this force in their math? No, instead they warped nothing so much that it now shot jets of matter out of the center of galaxies, even though it never did so before. Why? Because technology advanced and observations falsified the original theory.

But it rose from the dead and morphed into a religious belief. A belief that can exist, unshaken by direct laboratory evidence, by data sent back from every single space probe in the last 20 years.


I wish I had your faith indeed! Or is it that I just need to put the View Master back up to my eyes?

 

[Coelo]

I don't know what Helen Keller experienced. "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it",

No, but it is the same as God could have done it. Again you can NOT offer an alternate explanation. So we have the best explanation. Until you come up with a better one. Even IF we can not prove to your satisfaction that there actually is a God. Still we can show that Helen Keller benefited from a belief in God. Even if you do not understand or you can not explain her experience.

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart."

Helen Keller

​

 

[CabVet]

No, but it is the same as God could have done it. Again you can NOT offer an alternate explanation. So we have the best explanation. Until you come up with a better one. Even IF we can not prove to your satisfaction that there actually is a God. Still we can show that Helen Keller benefited from a belief in God. Even if you do not understand or you can not explain her experience.

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart."

Helen Keller

​

Isn't it interesting how followers of all religions claim similar experiences? Isn't it also interesting how most religions (including Christianity) claim they are the only correct one?

 

[Freodin]

No, but it is the same as God could have done it. Again you can NOT offer an alternate explanation. So we have the best explanation. Until you come up with a better one. Even IF we can not prove to your satisfaction that there actually is a God. Still we can show that Helen Keller benefited from a belief in God. Even if you do not understand or you can not explain her experience.

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart."

Helen Keller

​

God, in all his "revelations" and "conversation", never presents something that a person does not know or can deduce - or imagine - by themselves.

So the alternative - and better and more simple - explanation for such "experiences": it comes from yourself, not from an outside source, especially not from a vastly superiour outside source.

 

[AV1611VET]

God, in all his "revelations" and "conversation", never presents something that a person does not know or can deduce - or imagine - by themselves.

So the alternative - and better and more simple - explanation for such "experiences": it comes from yourself, not from an outside source, especially not from a vastly superiour outside source.

Right -- that's why you guys don't know the difference between "magic" and "miracle," don't know what a "kind" is, don't know the difference between a local flood and a global one, knows who wrote the book of Matthew, wonder why the books of the Apocrypha aren't considered the word of God, and on and on and off.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Right -- that's why you guys don't know the difference between "magic" and "miracle," don't know what a "kind" is, don't know the difference between a local flood and a global one, knows who wrote the book of Matthew, wonder why the books of the Apocrypha aren't considered the word of God, and on and on and off.

Are these Trivial Pursuit questions?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are these Trivial Pursuit questions?

If it was, I have a feeling you guys would use a whole different set of terminology -- or at least try to.

For some, it would be the equivalent of speaking in tongues.

 

[BarryDesborough]

If it was, I have a feeling you guys would use a whole different set of terminology -- or at least try to.

For some, it would be the equivalent of speaking in tongues.

What have they got to do with proving the spiritual to the "spiritually blind" in a comparable way to the way in which we can prove vision to real blind people?

 

[AV1611VET]

What have they got to do with proving the spiritual to the "spiritually blind" in a comparable way to the way in which we can prove vision to real blind people?

Not by playing Trivial Pursuit™.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Not by playing Trivial Pursuit™.

Not any way. "Spiritually blind" is a stupid label.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Spiritually blind" is a stupid label.

It is, huh?

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

In what way are those guides blind?

 

[BarryDesborough]

It is, huh?

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

In what way are those guides blind?

In what way does that make the label not stupid?