- Oct 10, 2011
- 24,717
- 5,558
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Every great discovery ever made most usually started with a belief, most usually anyway.
God Bless.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Every great discovery ever made most usually started with a belief, most usually anyway.'Belief' would be more appropriate .. (its just a more natural fit, wouldn't ya say?)
The origin of quantum mechanics does not come from the microscopic world of subatomic particles but from a distinctly macroscopic phenomenum known as blackbody radiation where the temperature of the blackbody determines the wavelength radiated.
The classical physical law known as the Rayleigh-Jeans law was able predict the blackbody spectrum at higher wavelengths such as in the infrared range and beyond as shown in the graph.
...led to the development of quantum mechanics which is a natural not a supernatural explanation.
Aww .. shucks ..
(You didn't start, then leave for 11 pages, an Apologetics thread, in a science forum .. feel free to respond if you like).
The only evidenced thing that's been going on, since humans have been around, is the human mind updating human knowledge with new human meanings. There's only two known ways for that happen, either by: (i) the scientific method or, (ii) by beliefs.Every great discovery ever made most usually started with a belief, most usually anyway.
Ok.The only evidenced thing that's been going on, since humans have been around, is the human mind updating human knowledge with new human meanings. There's only two known ways for that happen, either by: (i) the scientific method or, (ii) by beliefs.
We can distinguish a belief by understanding how the scientific method works to give meaning to objective (or physical) reality.
I won't elaborate further on this because we'll get too side-tracked. Suffice it to say, that's how I know the biblical Exodus is a tall story.
The 'tough bar' will simply disappear once you choose to let go of the solipsism.Remember, I'm an uneducated solipsist, so objective evidence is a tough bar for me to get over.
I find we're very closely aligned, philosophically. The philosophical viewpoint I'm always coming from, is one which releases science from belief. Many aren't quite there yet, but it'll happen eventually. CheersAnyway no hard feelings, we'll talk again I'm sure.
That's a very interesting video (and yes I did watch and listen to the whole thing) (and watch and listen to the whole thing very carefully I might add) (and I think I might check out some more of his other videos, because of what he says at the end, etc) but it's very interesting, etc.It is not about the ancient Egyptian version of history but rather history reconstructed from the archaeological evidence.
Here is a video of the history of Egypt's involvement in Canaan based on that evidence.
@sjastroThat's a very interesting video (and yes I did watch and listen to the whole thing) (and watch and listen to the whole thing very carefully I might add) (and I think I might check out some more of his other videos, because of what he says at the end, etc) but it's very interesting, etc.
But how much evidence is there exactly to back it all up, or support it, etc? A few tablets found here or there, mostly Egyptian, and witten/recorded by the Egyptians I might add, and maybe a few other trinkets also, etc, but not many, etc, one tablet from a certain king in Cannan, etc, but not from the area that Israel was occupying, etc, because we also know that the Israelites were not occupying the whole region as well, etc, and even in some of your video, it says they were avoiding or leaving certain groups alone, etc. Now I wonder why that is, etc? Because we know Philistia was not a part of Israel, along with some other areas in that land, and so it was not all of Cannan by any means, etc, but might just be the areas Egypt was avoiding, etc. It (your video) also starts mentioning the Israelites at around 1200 BCE and the Egyptians losing hold on certain portions of that area/land (Cannan) around that time also, and having to leave it alone after that also, etc?
Anyway, I plan on checking out some other videos on YouTube by that same person soon, mainly because of what he says at the end of this one, but I'm just not going to do it right, right now, etc.
But I don't think this video, even if entirely correct, necessarily disproves the exodus, etc, but I plan to look into it more, etc.
God Bless.
If the Exodus of approximately 20,000 Egyptian/Hebrew slaves did happen in Egypt just like the Bible says, ten plagues and all of that, Red Sea, etc, I know that Egypt would want to blot that whole experience out of their history and memory as quickly as they could or can, etc, so I don't expect it to ever be written down, or written down correctly, by the Egyptians anywhere, etc. And I would also expect them to avoid another encounter with those people in the future also, unless they wanted a repeat of those events, etc, which your video says is exactly what they did, etc.@sjastro
I do like the video though, and plan on watching more of them just simply because I like them, etc, but I would also say that the exact history of that area around that time period is still incomplete, and that we are mainly only getting a Egyptian telling of it for the most part only, etc, which "who then really knows again with that", etc.
God Bless.
I'm sick of hearing tall stories!
Nonsense. You are claiming that if you don't understand what I have said it is your fault. Balderdash! Assuming you are mentally and emotionally sound then the failure is almost certainly mine. I am responsible for making myself clear. Not you. And the reverse applies - if your writing is so wooly, your thoughts so disorganised, your vocabulary misapplied, your arguments illogical, your grammar farcical, so that you are misunderstood that is not the fault of the reader. That is the fault of the writer.The trick is to remember that when someone says something that seems totally ridiculous, somewhere inside their head is a line of reasoning that makes complete sense to that person, and your job, should you choose to accept it, is to try to find that line of reasoning.
You are claiming that if you don't understand what I have said it is your fault.
Assuming you are mentally and emotionally sound then the failure is almost certainly mine. I am responsible for making myself clear. Not you.
And the reverse applies - if your writing is so wooly, your thoughts so disorganised, your vocabulary misapplied, your arguments illogical, your grammar farcical, so that you are misunderstood that is not the fault of the reader. That is the fault of the writer.
Effective communication leading towards a common understanding, is a two-way process.Nonsense. You are claiming that if you don't understand what I have said it is your fault. Balderdash! Assuming you are mentally and emotionally sound then the failure is almost certainly mine. I am responsible for making myself clear. Not you. And the reverse applies - if your writing is so wooly, your thoughts so disorganised, your vocabulary misapplied, your arguments illogical, your grammar farcical, so that you are misunderstood that is not the fault of the reader. That is the fault of the writer.
Certainly, but my princpal point (and my principle point, also) is that if one chooses to view it as a one-way process one had best take responsibility for any problems.Effective communication leading towards a common understanding, is a two-way process.
Hmm .. interesting opinion.Certainly, but my princpal point (and my principle point, also) is that if one chooses to view it as a one-way process one had best take responsibility for any problems.
This paper below shows what I now believe to be the correct number of Israelites in the exodus from Egypt, etc. And instead of 2 million, it shows, and proves in my opinion, that the number was closer to 20 thousand, rather than 2 million, etc.
Take meticulous care to express oneself with great clarity, ensuring that the target topic of any response is clearly identified and ones argument is presented with minimum ambiguity and carefully directed emphasis. Adjust ones response on subsequent exchanges to take account of probable reasons for failure to properly communicate, until one reaches the point that it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain and a genuine desire to understand that one has been dealing with a numpty.How would you suggest one might go about 'taking responsibility' for a listener's warped listening perceptions?
You come across as a smart individual.It's amazing how you can say things that I know will go right over my head, and yet I read it anyway perhaps believing that I'll absorb some of it by osmosis alone. It's not working all that well, but unlike some people you can make me feel like a complete idiot... while at the same time making it seem as though you don't actually think I'm a complete idiot. That's a gift not everybody's got.
I believe our understanding of reality changes as we acquire more knowledge; in this case the difference between ‘natural’ and ‘other natural’ is the level of understanding.I completely agree. I would also argue that whatever the source of our reality is... it's natural... it just is what it is. In which case @Neogaia777's description of 'other natural' might be more appropriate... as if there could somehow be a difference between 'natural' and 'other natural'. In this case it's the difference between things such as superposition being perfectly natural in one realm, while being completely verboten in another. They're both natural, they're just otherly natural.
My description of the quantum realm as being 'supernatural' was based solely on the hierarchical order of one seemingly being an emergent property of the other.
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?