How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[Mountainmike]

A nice summary of several hackneyed creationists tropes.

I didn’t refer to creation. Just forensic evidence.

One day atheists need to accept JC was real , the shroud is almost certainly his as the only documented death in that form.

If he was called tutenkhamen you would go where the science leads.


It’s sad you won’t read the science.
You might learn something.
Atheist faith too strong to allow you to read stuff that might disagree huh?

 

[durangodawood]

...QM is bonkers at philosophical level , showing science is just a model not an underlying reality......

Why must reality not be bonkers?

I mean, our little minds are conditioned to existence in our tiny bubble of time and space. Why should we expect sense-making at the human scale to apply well to all scales of reality?

 

[Mountainmike]

You are correct. My statement was hyperbolic to make the point that there are thousands of denominations with unique beliefs. It is probably better to say there two main interpretations literal and metaphorical. But whether it's thousands or two the real problem is not what some believes but the push to teach religions beliefs in public schools.

Religious belief? Like the completely unevidenced abiogenesis you mean, that with real science doesn’t qualify even as hypothesis let alone a theory. It’s a shame atheist schools don’t teach the absence of evidence, for their preferred belief.

There’s more forensic evidence for life from theistic origin. I cite the white cells ( therefore living) in heart myocardium tissue that has appeared intimately infused with bread ( so impossible to fake) occurring in ( so called ) Eucharistic miracles.

 

[Mountainmike]

Why must reality not be bonkers?

I mean, our little minds are conditioned to existence in our tiny bubble of time and space. Why should we expect sense-making at the human scale to apply well to all scales of reality?

I ask atheists who call me bonkers, the same question.

Then they all claim it all has to conform to ( their) reason instead. Ie not bonkers.

I point out their reason is just a sum of experience of repeatable things, and the assumption the moon is there before they look at it is part of their world view, so a philosophy based on scientific reality is bonkers,

I then point out the religion of atheism ( more correctly scientific realism) can’t accept the moon isn’t there till they look....

So I suggest we are all bonkers.

 

[Mountainmike]

Just for clarity is it also your position
that evolution is false and that evidence for
the flood is sadly ignored by atheists who
won't be objective?

I explained some thoughts on evolution earlier.

Read them.

as for geology.. you do know the shroud In area of feet has traces of minerals only found in the holy land, Jerusalem area do you? Real science has been done!

that’s the problem: people read the atheist media , never the shroud science.

Now check out the chemical nature of the shroud mark.
The 3D characteristic and the only way it can be duplicated is short burst radiation.

or check out the serum pathology around the whip marks.
Invisible and unknown till recent pathology visible only by UV light.

Why did fakers create marks they couldn’t even see with no knowledge of the need for it to exist in pathology?

Who did they borrow a UV laser from? Where did they plug it in with no electricity then?

how did they get hold of the sudarium to achieve 60 point forensic correspondence with the shroud head?

why did they show nails in wrist bones when all precious iconography showed hands?

the list of impossible it is a fake questions is endless.

I prefer science to atheist tropes.

 

[Frank Robert]

Religious belief? Like the completely unevidenced abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is a valid scientific inquiry, regardless of your beliefs.

you mean, that with real science doesn’t qualify even as hypothesis let alone a theory.

Any hypothesis that can be tested with the scientific method is a scientific hypothesis.

It’s a shame atheist schools don’t teach the absence of evidence, for their preferred belief.

Are you including the University of Notre Dame, College of the Holy Cross, Georgetown University, Boston College, Santa Clara University, Villanova University and many Christians schools that teach science?

There’s more forensic evidence for life from theistic origin. I cite the white cells ( therefore living) in heart myocardium tissue that has appeared intimately infused with bread ( so impossible to fake) occurring in ( so called ) Eucharistic miracles.

Those hypotheses that can be tested using the scientific method are valid scientific hypotheses.

Your understanding of science appears to be limited by your religious beliefs which is not uncommon.

 

[Frank Robert]

I prefer science to atheist tropes.

Yet it appears that much of what you label as science are creationist tropes.

 

[Mountainmike]

Abiogenesis that is - the spontaneous appearance of an 18000 protein, self designing developing chemical factory cannot be tested.

You have neither a process to it, evidence of an antecedent, evidence it occurred or has occurred, you cannot reproduce it.

Therefore you have no experiment. Therefore you have no hypothesis.

identifying the spontaneous appearance of a brick that might be used in a wall, is not evidence of a self building factory. Period. That’s all abiogenesis scientists have. A few bricks.

it seems I know more science than you.

There are also massive problems in macro evolution. Many examples, Like how did a 3 chamber heart become 4? When it needed complete replumbing, reversal of flows, reorganisation of muscles groups.

The best surgeon on earth probably could not keep a patient alive trying it, and yet, there’s no trail of dead failures as it is occurring in nature and nobody has seen it or can reproduce it.

The only truthful answer is nobody knows. There is no hypothesis.

You are welcome to your faith in abiogenesis . Just call it what it is Blind faith.

I have presented evidence of no life to life in so called Eucharistic miracles. So on forensic evidence evolution 0 theistic origin 5

that’s the problem.
I like science to much too accept ill informed atheist pseudoscience and b/s.

Abiogenesis is a valid scientific inquiry, regardless of your beliefs.

Any hypothesis that can be tested with the scientific method is science.

Are you including the University of Notre Dame, College of the Holy Cross, Georgetown University, Boston College, Santa Clara University, Villanova University and many Christians schools that teach science?

Those that can be tested using the scientific method then they are valid scientific hypotheses.

Your understanding of science appears to be limited by your religious beliefs which is not uncommon.

 

[Speedwell]

Abiogenesis that is - the spontaneous appearance of an 18000 protein, self designing developing chemical factory cannot be tested.

What makes you think it had to be a spontaneous appearance, fully formed?

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve pointed at interesting shroud science.
You can read it or not.
But I have noted the atheist faith is too strong to let science dent it.

Yet it appears that much of what you label as science are creationist tropes.

 

[Mountainmike]

What makes you think it had to be a spontaneous appearance, fully formed?

I didn’t. I said “ or antecedent” postulated or observed.
According to abiogenesis At some point a minimum self evolving functioning cell came spontaneosly from a ( combination of ) no life chemical predecessor . No antecedent has ever been proposed ,or observed no mechanism to it or from it. No explanation for why it isn’t still occurring.

So abiogenesis does not qualify as a hypothesis. So atheists have Just sheer speculation with no evidence ie FAITH! Not science.

 

[Speedwell]

I didn’t. I said “ or antecedent” postulated or observed.
According to abiogenesis
At some point was a minimum self evolving functioning cell that came from a no life chemical predecessor . No antecedent has ever been proposed ,or observed no mechanism to it or from it.

Not that you're aware of, obviously.

so abiogenesis does not qualify as a hypothesis. So atheists have Just sheer speculation with no evidence , ie FAITH! Not science.

Why is it so important to you to only consider atheists? What about the scientists working in the field who are not atheists?

 

[Mountainmike]

Not that you're aware of, obviously.

Why is it so important to you to only consider atheists? What about the scientists working in the field who are not atheists?

Im aware thanks. I study it.
Your postulation is?
Sadly some attack my knowledge but can never fill the void themselves.

Only atheists have the philosophical / faith problem of shoring up the idea of a cell from random chance science. And boy! The money they’ve wasted getting nowhere.

I’ve pointed out on forensic evidence cells appear in theistic context.
Take ( so called ) Eucharistic miracles . Abiogenesis believers none.
So on forensic evidence for origin of life, theists win, and incidentally they disprove Darwin using DARWINS own test for falsifying his theory!

 

[Frank Robert]

Abiogenesis that is - the spontaneous appearance of an 18000 protein, self designing developing chemical factory cannot be tested.

Didn't your dad tell you that when you are in a hole you should stop digging.

We know life stated on earth but don't know how.
There are several hypothesis for how life from organic chemicals
The Miller-Urey experiment provided the first evidence that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components.

There are also massive problems in macro evolution.

Micro and macro evolution are simply evolution on different scales. Both rely on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change, i.e
mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.

The people who deny the science, i.e creationists, have a vested interests in doing so.

 

[Estrid]

I explained some thoughts on evolution earlier.

Read them.

as for geology.. you do know the shroud In area of feet has traces of minerals only found in the holy land, Jerusalem area do you? Real science has been done!

that’s the problem: people read the atheist media , never the shroud science.

Now check out the chemical nature of the shroud mark.
The 3D characteristic and the only way it can be duplicated is short burst radiation.

or check out the serum pathology around the whip marks.
Invisible and unknown till recent pathology visible only by UV light.

Why did fakers create marks they couldn’t even see with no knowledge of the need for it to exist in pathology?

Who did they borrow a UV laser from? Where did they plug it in with no electricity then?

how did they get hold of the sudarium to achieve 60 point forensic correspondence with the shroud head?

why did they show nails in wrist bones when all precious iconography showed hands?

the list of impossible it is a fake questions is endless.

I prefer science to atheist tropes.

I explained some thoughts on evolution earlier.

Read them.

as for geology.. you do know the shroud In area of feet has traces of minerals only found in the holy land, Jerusalem area do you? Real science has been done!

that’s the problem: people read the atheist media , never the shroud science.

Now check out the chemical nature of the shroud mark.
The 3D characteristic and the only way it can be duplicated is short burst radiation.

or check out the serum pathology around the whip marks.
Invisible and unknown till recent pathology visible only by UV light.

Why did fakers create marks they couldn’t even see with no knowledge of the need for it to exist in pathology?

Who did they borrow a UV laser from? Where did they plug it in with no electricity then?

how did they get hold of the sudarium to achieve 60 point forensic correspondence with the shroud head?

why did they show nails in wrist bones when all precious iconography showed hands?

the list of impossible it is a fake questions is endless.

I prefer science to atheist tropes.

I explained some thoughts on evolution earlier.

Read them.

as for geology.. you do know the shroud In area of feet has traces of minerals only found in the holy land, Jerusalem area do you? Real science has been done!

that’s the problem: people read the atheist media , never the shroud science.

Now check out the chemical nature of the shroud mark.
The 3D characteristic and the only way it can be duplicated is short burst radiation.

or check out the serum pathology around the whip marks.
Invisible and unknown till recent pathology visible only by UV light.

Why did fakers create marks they couldn’t even see with no knowledge of the need for it to exist in pathology?

Who did they borrow a UV laser from? Where did they plug it in with no electricity then?

how did they get hold of the sudarium to achieve 60 point forensic correspondence with the shroud head?

why did they show nails in wrist bones when all precious iconography showed hands?

the list of impossible it is a fake questions is endless.

I prefer science to atheist tropes.

I explained some thoughts on evolution earlier.

Read them.

as for geology.. you do know the shroud In area of feet has traces of minerals only found in the holy land, Jerusalem area do you? Real science has been done!

that’s the problem: people read the atheist media , never the shroud science.

Now check out the chemical nature of the shroud mark.
The 3D characteristic and the only way it can be duplicated is short burst radiation.

or check out the serum pathology around the whip marks.
Invisible and unknown till recent pathology visible only by UV light.

Why did fakers create marks they couldn’t even see with no knowledge of the need for it to exist in pathology?

Who did they borrow a UV laser from? Where did they plug it in with no electricity then?

how did they get hold of the sudarium to achieve 60 point forensic correspondence with the shroud head?

why did they show nails in wrist bones when all precious iconography showed hands?

the list of impossible it is a fake questions is endless.

I prefer science to atheist tropes.

Never mind.

 

[Frank Robert]

I’ve pointed at interesting shroud science.
You can read it or not.
But I have noted the atheist faith is too strong to let science dent it.

Thank you but I already have read quite a bit on the shroud. There is no evidence that the shroud is the one that Jesus was buried in. The Catholic church neither formally endorses nor rejects the shroud, and only refers to it as an “icon of a man scourged and crucified”.

 

[Frank Robert]

Not that you're aware of, obviously.

Why is it so important to you to only consider atheists? What about the scientists working in the field who are not atheists?

Because creationist can not recognize that most Christians disagree with them and that their interpretations are in the minority among Christians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

QM is bonkers at philosophical level , showing science is just a model not an underlying reality.

Philosophy is just the musings of humans. QM is the underlying nature of (most of*) physical reality. Perhaps it is philosophy that is wholly inadequate.

*While physicists speculate that gravity/space-time is also quantized (and string theory is one of those attempts), it is not known for sure that it is the case, though every other fundamental force *is* quantized.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sadly- atheist press have not presented an objective account of where the science is at. I can give you a reading list if you like

So what exactly is the "atheist press"? I've not heard that one before.

 

[renniks]

Three unprovens. You are over looking the fact that your own religion is unproven.

When you speak of "enlightenment" you are displaying a lack of knowledge of Buddhism which is not uncommon. Enlightenment is a mis-translation of the Sanskrit "bodhi" which literally translates to "awakening."

Let's start with the thousands of contradictory biblical interpretations.

The central tenet of Christianity is the resurrection. That is proven beyond reasonable doubt.