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.
I just studied it.Have you studied it?
Are you repeating what I just said?Standard mathematics based on the standard axioms of mathematics is universal in science.
Yes Zolii, that is the defined domain of science, the singularity and even the initial inflation, is beyond the reach of science. Hence science, is not qualified to specify the genesis of space time.The predictions emanating the BB/singularity that have been measured are background microwaves (those discovering it were awarded Nobel prizes) and the measurement of gravitational waves. In my discussion about what constitutes evidence, my definition is focused on that which can be measured and particularly where it has the capacity to be replicated.
Of course eye witness accounts when recorded by a third party, may degrade the source. That is why there are multiple accounts, this allows us to compare the accounts and clarify the subject in the accounts.You replied - well you have a written account from a person who recorded a witness testimony and isnt that evidence. I guess since we take on board eye witness accounts in a court of law I have to accept your point. From my perspective though it weakens when it recorded by a 3rd party, then translated and re-drafted over millenniums, as such records are open to transcription error. That said - I accept your view that its a form of evidence albeit weakened by time and transcription, and not as strong as something you can actually measure and replicate.
As I said before, two trillion galaxies are not derived from an energy source smaller than a ping pong ball. There is a problem with the scientific model presented, this model requires faith at a scale that I do not possess.Not exactly; spacetime is itself an explanatory model. Science is trying to understand the observations from which models such as spacetime are derived. Promising lines of enquiry include those in which spacetime is emergent from a more fundamental context.
How can I deal with the cardinality of numbers that are not defined?Try transfinite cardinality just for starters.
Not so fast there, klutedavid, we just established that there is no contemporary eyewitness accounts that record anything Jesus ever said or did. As I asked earlier, what is this "overwhelming" evidence you speak of?Ultimately, weak or strong evidence, it remains sufficient evidence to paint the portrait of the Christ.
Well if you don't believe in actual infinities, such as infinite numbers, you are in good company. Gauss, Poincare and Kronecker, to name a few, thought of infinity is nothing more than a kind of useful fiction that allows us to do things with limits. Mathematicians who reject the Cantorian approach to the construction of transfinite numbers are sometimes called finitists.Have you studied it?
The New Testament accounts, non canonical accounts, the account given by Josephus (Jewish historian).Not so fast there, klutedavid, we just established that there is no contemporary eyewitness accounts that record anything Jesus ever said or did. As I asked earlier, what is this "overwhelming" evidence you speak of?
Standard, finite, what is the difference?Not exactly; note the qualification 'standard'.
You'll find that more familiar you are with the physics such models are based on, the less faith you'll require.As I said before, two trillion galaxies are not derived from an energy source smaller than a ping pong ball. There is a problem with the scientific model presented, this model requires faith at a scale that I do not possess.
The physical conditions following the big bang are derived from applying our most successful physical model (with a vast amount of experimental support) to observations indicating our universe is expanding (i.e. suggesting it was much smaller in the distant past).One of the main problems with any scientific model derived from the evidence, is the evidence must be sampled from the entire population. The evidence must not be sourced from a single sample of the population.
I don't follow you - speculate about what, with data from which single location?What I mean FB, is simply I would require observations from thousands of galaxies in different locations through space time. I am not going to speculate on the data from a single location, that would not be scientific.
I don't know what problem you think you're seeing - can you be more specific?Who is really following the scientific methodology?
They represent completely different concepts (in this context, 'normative' vs 'limited or bounded'). My point (again) is that there are non-standard mathematics based on different axioms to normative (standard) mathematics.Standard, finite, what is the difference?
I used to read a lot of science fiction; not so much these days - though I did recently enjoy 'We Are Legion (We Are Bob)' by Dennis E. Taylor.I hope your not delving into science fiction.
Which one of these accounts is a primary contemporary of Jesus?The New Testament accounts, non canonical accounts, the account given by Josephus (Jewish historian).
Second century accounts directly derived from disciples of the apostles. All in all, sufficient evidence to recognize the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the messiah.
These accounts at the time of their writing were very much contemporary accounts.
Your reading in those accounts, authentic contemporary, descriptions of the words and events surrounding the life of Jesus.
The ability of any theory to make predictions is not a proof of anything.
I can develop a theory based on observable weather patterns, this does not mean the theory would be valid. Even though in fifty percent of predictive cases the theory was valid.
Hi Arius,Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked
Should a religion like Darwinism be allowed to take over and destroy the core meaning of science, including the word faith?
The Godless Religion Darwinism has kidnapped the word "science" through deception, trickery and magic, and made it synonymous with the word 'evolution', and continues to redefine its definition in support of their own godless doctrines.
It has also redefined the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" which is what all Religions require;
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
By reinterpreting the word "faith" into just a religious concept based on nothing but blind faith (see synonyms of faith above)
Actual, Biblical definition of
Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
True faith requires evidence with substance, while Religion requires 'blind faith'
in its 1,700 years existence has allowed tens of thousands of different denominations to derive from the RCC, which itself is the founder of the Big Bang Evolution theory.
Evolution:
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
Science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;
1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?
2. show why the word 'faith' can only mean 'blind faith'?
May the Schwartz be with you.Hi Arius,
You rightly divided you first post Scriptures. And rightly infomed of a war with principalities and powers that have enveloped many, including many of those on Christian Forums Science Section, unfortunately.
Keep up the Shield. And the Sword.
Many are ensnared in what you have addressed in your post, that deal with Reality in our day and age.
Many have a background in religious principles, including when young going to Christian churches. Need I say they were churchy, and not sensitive to the Holy Spirit. At this point many are earnest in putting down the principles you presented. They find interest in coming to Christian Forums to push Christians around, in there eyes they see them as deceived, unenlightened, and twist science.
But you well know God On High will only bring Truth to awaken them by His doing, His Spirit opening up their eyes to verses in the Bible they need in order to be recovered from the snare of darkness that has them.
God recovered me from such, we know He can do the same for others.
May God lead and bless.
Way above us, aye Inco?There's no such thing as proof in science so...
I'd suggest reading up on what a scientific theory is, and is not.
What Is a Scientific Theory?
Here are a few observed examples, some of speciation in progress, some of speciation completed: Evidence from observed speciation.
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?