Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

There is dictionary "faith", and there is biblical "faith". You keep confusing the two.

So, only your faith is the 'right' kind of faith? You've now made a new claim. Can you back it up

Yes.

Dictionary "faith" defines the meaning of a word. Biblical "faith" defines the meaning of a Person (Jesus).

Dictionary "faith" can be applied to anything without the support of evidence. Biblical "faith" can only be applied to Jesus, and Jesus is the evidence.

If it does not apply to Jesus, it's not the "right kind of faith", it's only the dictionary type.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now what is this "biblical faith" that you claim to have and how do you know you have it?

Faith = Facts Accepted In The Heart

 

[sandwiches]

It's history, you should know better than to ask questions like that. I believe George Washington was the first president of the United States, too, but there's no objective evidence in the scientific sense that it's subject to repeatable experiment.

All of it is history or some of it? How can we tell the difference between what is true and what isn't?

 

[sandwiches]

Yes.

Dictionary "faith" defines the meaning of a word. Biblical "faith" defines the meaning of a Person (Jesus).

Dictionary "faith" can be applied to anything without the support of evidence. Biblical "faith" can only be applied to Jesus, and Jesus is the evidence.

If it's not applied to Jesus, it's not the "right kind of faith", it's only the dictionary type.

So I was right.

Your claim that your faith is the right one is supported by the Bible which requires said faith already. Circular logic and special pleading. So, can we use circular logic to back up other claims or just those in the Bible?

 

[Jnwaco]

All of it is history or some of it? How can we tell the difference between what is true and what isn't?

Multiple attestations, people writing at a time when their beliefs would get them killed, the rapid growth of Christian churches at a time when the beliefs could have easily been debunked by naysayers, etc. As I've mentioned it's a more in depth study than a message board allows.

 

[BananaSlug]

The stars are within the galaxy, not around the galaxy where the light is said to be bent. So why should the stars within the galaxy obscure the light around the galaxy?

The gravity of the whole galaxy is causing the warping.

Charged particles within cosmic plasma shape matter into arcs, filaments and toruses.

That doesn't answer my question. I had asked:

So why do the plamsa arcs seem to create a circular "lensing" effect?

No, something is wrong with the eye balls of the observer.

So you are saying the "lensing" effect seen in the picture is nothing more than plasma arcs? Why are they arranged in a circular pattern rather than randomly criss-crossing across the image?

How would we test “dark matter”? How would we test “dark energy”?

Scientists are working on that now.

How would we test “space warping”?

I just showed you...
Let me hear your interpretation but you have to use your own calculations.

• Ultra High Resolution Science Data Extraction for the Gravity Probe B Gyro and Telescope
  Richard Van Patten, Ray DiEsposti, John V. Breakwell, SPIE Proceedings Vol. 619, 23-24, January 1986.
• The Gravity Probe B 'Niobium Bird' Experiment Verifying the Data Reduction Scheme for Estimating the Relativistic Precession of Earth-Orbiting Gyroscopes
  H. Uematsu, B. W. Parkinson, J. M. Lockhart, B. Muhlfelder,Spaceflight Mechanics 1993, Vol. 82, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences.
• The Stanford Relativity Mission, Niobium Bird. Verification of the Science Mission by Experimental Application of a New Nonlinear Estimation Algorithm
  G. T. Haupt, G.Gutt, J. M. Lockhart, N. J. Kasdin, G. M. Keiser, B. W. Parkinson, 18th Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, Keystone, Colorado, February 1-5, 1995.
• An Optimal Recursive Iterative Algorithm for Discrete Nonlinear Least-Squares Estimation
  G. Haupt, N. Kasdin, G. Keiser, and B. Parkinson, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, andControl Conference, August 7-10, 1995 AIAA-95-3218.
• Data Reduction, Error and Analysis and Identification of Systemic Errors in the Gravity Probe B Experiment
  M. I. Heifetz. C.W. F. Everitt, G. M. Keiser, A. S. Silbergleit, Proceedings of the Eighth Marcel Grossman Meeting on General Relativity. Ed: Tsvi Piran, World Scientific, Singapore, Part A, pp 259-268, 1999.
• Data Analysis in the Gravity Probe B Relativity Experiment
  M. I. Heifetz, G. M. Keiser, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Fusion, Volume II, FUSION-99.

Here are the papers of the data. Have fun!

In light of your test failures, you have no credibility to ask for a test.

Fail. I provided test data. Let me see yours.

The current cosmology is based on Big Bang. Big Bang is based on a flawed interpretation of red-shift. There is nothing independent of Big Bang in current cosmology, therefore there is nothing independent of red-shift on which the Big Bang is based. Falsify the current interpretation of red-shift and the current Big Bang cosmology falls apart.

I hope you are a Poe, I really hope there are not people out there who are this idiotic. General relativity is not based on redshift. CMBR is not based on redshift. Redshift is only a small part of the current cosmology. There are other lines of evidence as well that are independent of redshift.

Gravitational lensing is an ad hoc explanation of anomalous red-shift.

Gravitational lensing has nothing to do with redshift.

It has to do with Big Bang, and Big Bang is based on current red-shift interpretation, and current red-shift interpretation has been falsified, which makes Big Bang theory a zombie theory, and a zombie theory cannot explain anything? All you can do is add your own personal interpretations of observations to the zombie theory so as to make the zombie theory appear to be alive. But the real Cosmologists know the zombie theory is dead having died many years ago.

Are you done? Do you have any actual information or just rants? I'll ask the question agains since it seems you are having problems keeping up.

Does EU have an explanation for the blackbody spectrum identified by the COBE satellite?

What laboratory experiments have to done to verify “dark matter”?

What laboratory experiments have to done to verify “dark energy”?

Not everything in science requires laboratory experiments. We can also use our powers of observation and inference. We cannot make a lab experiment that shows the earth revolving around the sun, we had to make observations and infer based on what we saw.

What laboratory experiments have to done to verify “space warping”?
I don’t need papers. I need experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.
I don’t need data. I need experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

The papers describe the materials and methods and results. Even if you don't agree with the conclusion the data is there. The links I posted above are part of the experimental verification of space warping, a significant part of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Crying foul is very much justified.

Not until you provide some evidence.

And I’ll be waiting for you to provide experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

Warped space is down, only two more to go!

 

[Freodin]

Faith = Facts Accepted In The Heart

Faith = Falsehoods Aquired In Theological Hallucinations.


Funny game that... does it have any meaning?

 

[Doveaman]

So, you have faith because you believe you have faith, and your belief is valid because you have faith.

No.

I have belief because I have faith in what I believe, and my belief is valid because I have faith in what I believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith = Falsehoods Aquired In Theological Hallucinations.


Funny game that... does it have any meaning?

Ya --- mine explains what faith is, whereas yours is just made up to keep you wonder what faith is.

I can sit here and ask what photosynthesis is, have it explained to me, then say, "Ha, ha, ha; but seriously, what is photosynthesis?"

 

[Freodin]

Ya --- mine explains what faith is, whereas yours is just made up to keep you wonder what faith is.

I can sit here and ask what photosynthesis is, have it explained to me, then say, "Ha, ha, ha; but seriously, what is photosynthesis?"

If you want to give "explanations", you should be willing and able to have the questioned, poked and dissected. Else what you give is not an "explanation", just a response.

In that regard, my acronym (what is the opposite of acronym: the thing that an acronym is derived from?) "explains" faith as well as yours.


But as always, I am willing to play your game... till the point where you cry "/thread".

So what does your "faith" mean? (This is not a rhetorical question: I am asking you to explain your "explanation".)

As I see it...

"Facts": what is that? Or rather, what is that to you? Is "fact" just a single point of data? A statement? Or does it have to be "true" to be considered a fact?

Is "Americans are fat and stupid" a fact? Can I "accept it in my heart"?

So to go on... "accept": what does that mean? Accept as what?

As I see it...

... accept as true, of course. As factual, real, "TRUE". That has implications on the "facts". If "fact" means any kind of data/statement, I can accept all of them as "true" on my own liking. "Faith" includes no objective means of asserting the "truth" of a "fact".
But if I can only accept the "true" facts as true, I would need such an independent verification. Or else the questions starts again: how do I know my fact is true? (I don´t: I have faith: this is the evidence that it is true.)

And to end it: "in the heart": What does that mean? Is that a kind of metaphor for "really really sincerely"... or has it some factual connection?

As I see it...

... it is a metaphor. It is an expression of sincere belief, without doubt or evil intent.

Does that mean that, because I have this sincere belief in the fact that Americans are fat and stupid, this is evidence that Americans are fat and stupid?

 

[Doveaman]

You contradict yourself claiming you have no evidence. Then you say faith without evidence is blind.

Look at it this way:

A person may have "dictionary faith" that the train will arrive. That's blind faith. But if the train arrives, this provides evidence that confirms his "dictionary faith". Before the train arrived, his "dictionary faith" had no evidence. It was faith without evidence.

"Biblical faith" is nothing like that.

Now faith is...the evidence of things not seen. - Heb 11:1.

In "biblical faith", "faith and "evidence" are one and the same. The "faith" is the "evidence" and the "evidence" is the "faith", so the terms "with" and "without" evidence does not apply to "biblical faith" (even though we can at times speak of them as though they do).

You say you have faith in the proof and that proof is your faith because it's a special kind of faith but you can't show us why your faith is the correct one without having to assume that you're right in the first place.

As I said before, "We don't prove God to others. God proves Himself to us. And He already did, so if you can't see the proof, that's not our fault, that's your fault."

 

[Cabal]

Okay, so Democritus attributed Planck mass to atoms.

If they are divisible, why are they still called 'atoms'?

It's like the 'flying squirrel' or the 'flying fish'.

Doesn't your software need an upgrade?

Because we don't speak ancient Greek, perhaps?

I know I get confused when people talk about electronics and I think they're talking about amber.

Oh wait, I don't, because our languages have progressed a bit since then.

 

[Skaloop]

"We don't prove God to others. God proves Himself to us. And He already did, so if you can't see the proof, that's not our fault, that's your fault."

Or, His fault.

 

[Cabal]

Faith without evidence is blind. You know that.

As someone pointed out, your posts are the evidence.

Circular logic is basically an "I WIN I WIN LOLOLOLO" by sheer fiat anyway; and your "Biblical faith" getout is semantics.

Even so, by your own logic, you're clueless

 

[Skaloop]

Okay, so Democritus attributed Planck mass to atoms.

If they are divisible, why are they still called 'atoms'?

It's like the 'flying squirrel' or the 'flying fish'.

Doesn't your software need an upgrade?

No no no, you can't get away with that.

When "atom" doesn't match up with the new scientific definition of "indivisible", you deride it for not changing.

But when "Pluto" doesn't match up with the new scientific definition of "planet", you deride the change.

Nice try, and typical of your empty wordplay, but it ain't gonna fly.

 

[Cabal]

No no no, you can't get away with that.

When "atom" doesn't match up with the new scientific definition of "indivisible", you deride it for not changing.

But when "Pluto" doesn't match up with the new scientific definition of "planet", you deride the change.

Nice try, and typical of your empty wordplay, but it ain't gonna fly.

Hypo-critical hit!

It's super effective!!!

 

[MoonLancer]

Any idea what it will become?

your going to have to ask me in more detail, as there are lots of factors that change what it "could become". Its a ignorant question to ask alone.

 

[MoonLancer]

Faith = Facts Accepted In The Heart

the heart is a organ that pumps blood. don't you mean your gut?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not asking. You're just being your hateful, bigoted self, son.

Interesting word choice, in view of the fact that that's what you guys like to bring up in our face.

You guys are always rubbing the witch trials, the Crusades, or the Inquisition in our faces; like it is supposed to mean something.

One small group of people, in one small city, go against the Bible and put some innocent people on trial; and the entire Family of God throughout all ages are supposed to be doing that in perpetuity --- right?

 

[Cabal]

Interesting word choice, in view of the fact that that's what you guys like to bring up in our face.

You guys are always rubbing the witch trials, the Crusades, or the Inquisition in our faces; like it is supposed to mean something.

One small group of people, in one small city, go against the Bible and put some innocent people on trial; and the entire Family of God throughout all ages are supposed to be doing that in perpetuity --- right?

No, not really.

It's to show you that you cherry-pick as much as the next believer.

Not that your denial of this ever changes.