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.
That is all belief is, and therefore that is the most I can expect. Faith by definition is not founded in evidence.
That is so odd. It's as if all the data points to a different universe than ours. Here on earth Christians do stuff to investigate and explore. Maybe you just hang with the wrong crowd?
Can't he just let us know he is real?
You didn’t alter the questions at all. They remain exactly as they were. How does your God supposedly answer prayers? What process does it use? What is the underlying mechanism involved? What you did was evade those questions.Sorry. I altered the question to fit the data I was prepared to give.
And you altered the Data you've already received to fit the conclusion that you are planning on having.
So we are both disqualified from a mutual examination of the data. I expected this, and recommend the only valid solution for cases such as this. Select your own data sources and draw your own conclusions. That's what I had to do.
I spent years reading the instruction book, but that was all it was - an instruction book. A book telling me how to drive a car doesn't tell me how it works, likewise, a book telling me how to follow God doesn't tell me how he works.
I asked you how your God answers prayers and you stated....
That is all belief is, and therefore that is the most I can expect. Faith by definition is not founded in evidence.
...Dont think you are responding just to me. There are other readers here who may be yet to form a conclusion and who are waiting for you either to explain exactly how its all done or continue your evasive behaviour. The more evasively you behave, the more it looks like your statement was a lie.
Yes, I read that when you responded to SithDoughnut, but I have the same problems with it that he has. Repeating it to me doesnt fix those problems.Sith was on me for details as well.
I'll reprint.
How does your God supposedly meet ones needs. What process does it use to suspend natural laws?So when you reach that particular point in time, your needs are met "seemingly instantly".
In this unsupported testimonial, for example, how does your God communicate with the boat owner? SithDoughnut asked you the same question and you evaded it. Did your God call the boat owner on the phone, did it interrupt the programming on TV or the radio or did it send him a text and how did it accomplish any of those tasks from outside the observable universe? Please explain how your God did it and provide some sound, objective evidence to support any claims you may make.I first read about this in a true story of a person who felt he was being sent on a journey by the Holy Spirit. When he got to a river with no way to cross, he just prayed for God to do "Whatever". A boat appeared on the opposite side of the river and came across. The boat owner explained as they were crossing that he had felt that someone needed his boat so he made the hour trip down to the river.
How does your God alter peoples prayers? Does it control their minds against their will? How does your God control peoples minds from outside the observable universe? Please explain what mechanism your God uses and provide some sound, objective evidence to support any claims you may make.God sets the timing and alters a persons prayers to match His plans.
He doesn't do this for any reason other than to show that He is real.
Im just telling you how it looks to other readers here when Christians constantly evade questions. You claimed to know exactly how its all done, but you evade every request for an explanation. The more you evade our requests, the more it looks like either that statement was a lie or you live in a world of make-believe (or perhaps both).Don't bother speaking up for the imaginary people standing on the fence behind you. As if I care what your imaginary buddies think of me.
What process does it use to suspend natural laws?
So what it boils down to. is a difference in mindset.
for a christian god is the answer, and there is no need to put any more thought into it.
for a critial thinker, there must be a mechanisme by which it works, just like everything else.
and they try to find that out from the christian who doesnt have a answer outside of god-did-it, which is enough for a christian but not enough for a critial thinker. hench the arguement becomes "you dodged the question" and "you didnt like my answer" both are more or less right from the proper perspective it would seem to me.
So you think an immaterial God controlling your mind from outside the observable universe doesn’t contravene any natural laws? That’s only part of it. The mere fact that you think an immaterial God is controlling your mind is reason enough not to trust what you say.You aren't paying attention. He changes my thoughts to match is plans.
No natural laws are suspended.
I have to say, the way you describe it makes it look as though your God didn’t do anything at all.Even my intention to match my will to His seems like my own effort. It's all very natural. It's at the exact moment that I choose to stop "making the effort" to accomplish something and turn over the result to Him, that my needs get met.
Sometimes its exactly what I had been looking for, and usually its far more
that I was expecting. But the timing that creates the instantaneous
answer, that's the miracle. The miracle is that He does it without breaking
any natural laws.
What on Earth are you talking about? I didn’t cause you to come up with that ridiculous story. When you tell someone a questionable story, a reasonable person will probably ask you to prove what you say is true. I expected you to evade my questions because for the last two years I’ve watched Christians here evade questions time and time again.Your questions and requests seem to have the intended goal of me not answering them, rather than being from someone of sound mind. In fact you've basically stated that this is in fact your goal. So the questioning and experiment has been set up ahead of time with the intent of getting your expected outcome.
Actually, I think they are marvelling at your conversation rather than mine, but let’s ask them shall we? Are there any other non-believers here who have noticed a tendency for Christians to evade questions? What do you think of that evasive behaviour? Oh, I see one person has already noticed that tendency. I wonder how many others here have noticed.And again more fanciful delusions about "other readers" and the thoughts you imagine them having. So all this self-talk about how the rest of the world is watching your conversation with another person is the "real world" for you?
There certainly are other answers. First, I think Christians run from questions about their beliefs because they can see they don’t have reasonable answers. Second, I think Christians run from questions about their beliefs because they don’t want to relinquish those comforting beliefs, which has proven to be the result when they examine them too closely.You likely think your being rational. Christians don't run from you because you make sense. There's another answer.
If you say so....or not.
I've explained how you can experience how he works for yourself.
Now, as I answer your questions, I see a frantic attempt to redirect the
discussion to 10 new questions and even to a new thread.
All to evade the truth.
But how did he do it?
How did he tell the boat owner to go and make the detour?
How does this fit in to the concept of free will -
is God actually limited,
or does he just choose to be?
How limited is he?
If he isn't, then how does that fit in with the problem of evil?
Is he benevolent, or does he choose to be?
Is he forced to be a single type of God
or is he capable of deciding to not be benevolent whenever he chooses?
If he can change it, how does that affect him being 'all-loving'.
I gave you ALL the answers already.
See, now your the one not listening after I explained exactly how
he shows he's real. First altering of what I said, and now snow-blindness.
#2. God sets the timing and alters a persons prayers to match His plans.
He doesn't do this for any reason other than to show that He is real.
Sure it's an instruction book. It needs to be internalized. Just do it.
It is the way Consensus Cosmology interprets (or misinterprets) red-shift that makes it a problem; if the red-shifts in the two objects differ, they shouldnt be close, even if they appear to be close.The milky way is around 100,000 light years across. I cannot see how objects that are only separated by a few hundred light years are a problem.
Galaxies do not have more gravity than their visible mass alone would predict, and the fact that there is not enough visible mass to generate more gravity should falsify this flawed assumption.Then what is your explanation for galaxies having more gravity than their visible mass alone would predict?
Since dark matter has not been verified to be real, you cannot just take an observation and claim dark matter did it. God did it with electricity makes more sense, because God has been verified to be real, and so has electricity.Observational Evidence
Its anomalous because inherent red-shift is ignored. Inherent red-shift changes the understanding.Anomalous red-shift does not mean that our whole understanding of red-shift is thrown out the window.
And the idea of "expansion" is a result of a flawed interpretation of red-shift. The Universe is not expanding the way Consensus Cosmology says it is, because they do not take inherent red-shift into account when making their observations.Dark energy is an explanation as to why the universe is accelerating in its expansion.
Your quote: the universe is acting in a manner that contradicts our understanding of gravity.Could you please explain what you mean by "contradiction"?
Retrofitted observations is not evidence, its a modification of reality made to fit a dead hypothesis.Except for when we do have evidence?
Consensus interpretation of red-shift is flawed and therefore false, as Mr Arp demonstrated. The idea of an expanding universe is built upon this false premise, so that idea, too, is flawed and therefore false. Dark energy is a very poor attempt to cover up, or patch up, these many flaws so that people like you and me wouldnt notice them.Measurements of the redshift-magnitude relation for type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the Universe has been accelerating since the Universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the Universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy"...
The mathematics is fine, just as long as it is backed up by the actual physics.Though I do think some of these data are intriguing, I find it amusing that mathematics has played a large role in formulating these constructs.
They are flying apart, but not in the manner the Consensus says they are.The Consensus believes they are further apart than they really are, and that they should not be connected.The "anomalous" red-shift objects are flying apart. How would you explain the observations?
If your interpretation of the observation is flawed (red-shift), then your inference will also be flawed (dark energy).We have seen its effects. We can infer, based on the observations, that something is causing it.
Einstein's gravitational lenses are out of focus and unnecessary.Except when he was right? Like the Theory of General Relativity.
No, they dont. They see it as anomalous to the theory, but the theory remains sound.They do see it as a sign of flaws within the theory.
You mean the failed prediction can be exposed based on new evidence.The theory can change based on new evidence.
Yes, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, but Consensus Cosmology doesnt.Kind of like how the Germ Theory of Disease changed when we discovered viruses, prions, and even genetic disease.
Nope. That idea developed because of the flawed interpretation of red-shift.There were problems in some of his equations, yet many of his equations have been verified through observation. Like gravitational lensing.
Not according to the Consensus; they are too far away to be "shot out".The high red-shift of the quasers is indicative that they are being "shot out" away relative to our perception of the phenomena.
What ever that experiment was, it doesnt explain those "anomalous" objects above.Gravity can affect the red-shift of an object:
The effect is very small but measurable on Earth using the Mossbauer effect and was first observed in the Pound-Rebka experiment...
What! Gravitational redshift was observed in an actual experiment! Huzzah!
Observational conundrums, you mean.We like to call such instances "observational studies".
They are no other observations that support an expanding universe, the expansion is determined by an interpretation of red-shift, a flawed interpretation.So those "anomalous" red-shift objects disprove all of the other observations in support of an expanding universe?
Nothing supports the Big Bang, they are all retrofitted. According to the real evidence we observe, Big Bang never happened.What new explanations and formulas would you now provide to explain the other evidence that seemed to support the Big Bang?
This is because the current understanding is flawed. In Plasma Cosmology the observations are explained.Quick correction. They are considered "anomalous" under our current understanding of Big Bang cosmology.
They do not fit any Big Bang model that relies on a false interpretation of red-shift.They do not fit the current Big Bang model,
Yes they do. Big Bang theory is based upon the exact opposite of the observations.they do not falsify the entire theory.
Scientific Method:You really have no clue how science works do you?
In the mean time, the Big Bang is falsified until you can make sense of the observations. How about that?The term "anomalous" means "these observations cannot be explained using our current understanding of the universe. We need to make additional observations and see what happens".
We could find galaxies being held together.Since you obviously know so much about this, predict what observations we could find if electromagnetic force holds galaxies together.
That is what the Consensus says, but it is not what they have empirically demonstrated.Stars are not electrically powered. Their energy comes from nuclear fusion. The electricity is caused by movement of conductive plasma, creating a dynamo.
Do you have an actual working model of this star that is based on actual physics? Or is this just more assumptions?The magnetic field of a star is generated within regions of the interior where convective circulation occurs. This movement of conductive plasma functions like a dynamo, generating magnetic fields that extend throughout the star...
Thats because Consensus Cosmology does not recognize the electrical nature of the Universe, and they know nothing about electromagnetism in space, so they are all blind to the overwhelming evidence of it. That would explain the zero astronomical observations.There are zero astronomical observations that support a universe held together by electromagnetism.
Observations that are shoehorned into a dead hypothesis verifies nothing.So you really think that "anomalous" objects falsify all of the other observations we have made that verify our predictions?
Families expand as more members are added to the family (great grand parents, grand parents, parents, children, grand children, great grand children, etc.) The Universe expands the same way as more galaxies are added. The Universe is expanding within space at a normal rate. It is not space itself expanding beyond light speed.So... If the "electric universe" hypothesis is correct, why is the universe expanding?
Mathemagic.From the website:
"Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance." Synopsis of The Electric Universe
So what if redshift was both a measure of distance and a measure of age?
How would "electrical universe" hypothesis account for observations of black holes that correlate with the mathematical formulas?
Mathemagic.Einstein made the prediction that if his theory was correct, the gravitational force of an object in space would bend light. This observation was made after he developed his theory. If Einstein was wrong about general relativity, why was his prediction right, and how would the "electrical universe" explain it?
Thats because God did it with electricity.Here are some more gems from the website:
Stars are electrical transformers not thermonuclear devices. There are no neutron stars or Black Holes. We don't know the age of stars because the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them. Supernovae are totally inadequate as a source of heavy elements. We do not know the age of the Earth because radioactive clocks can be upset by powerful electric discharges.
DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA. Synopsis of The Electric Universe
This whole website seems to smack of creationism, even if some of the ideas actually have merit.
Doveaman, why do you keep saying that science is wrong and some kind of evil ploy to mislead the people, and then wheel out your own 'scientific' evidence for your ideas?
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?