I don't think you understand how to distinguish an objectively formed empirical prediction from street-talk(?)
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.
I don't think you understand how to distinguish an objectively formed empirical prediction from street-talk(?)Like Y2K? SETI? overpopulation? running out of food? ecological imbalances? Earth-rending syzygies? climate change? meteor/asteroid/comet impacts? sun spots? the Kessler syndrome? doomsday clock? tsunamis? volcano eruptions? killer bees? killer hornets? WW3? earthquakes? and a host of other stuff?
Let me take a guess.I don't think you understand how to distinguish an objectively formed empirical prediction from street-talk(?)
Well I guess my suspicion was right then ..Let me take a guess.
If it comes to pass, it's "an objectively formed empirical prediction"?
If it doesn't come to pass, it's "street-talk"?
Like Y2K? SETI? overpopulation? running out of food? ecological imbalances? Earth-rending syzygies? climate change? meteor/asteroid/comet impacts? sun spots? the Kessler syndrome? doomsday clock? tsunamis? volcano eruptions? killer bees? killer hornets? WW3? earthquakes? and a host of other stuff?
Yeah except Y2K was a money making IT industry/consulting conspiracy .. not a scientific one. I recall, at the time, being in the 'that's a load of total rubbish' camp .. Twas pure politics based on a complete lack of technical systems knowledge.You got one out of 13 (Y2K). And I'm being very generous there. Pretty poor strike rate I'm afraid. That's a fail.
I am glad to see you here, at least, ignore the usual claims concerning the beginning of causation: Infinite Regress, Just IS, Nature abhors a vacuum, Nothingness is of itself unstable, Multiple 'universes', etc.
Yes, I heard of all three.Can God create a star tomorrow that is 60 trillion light years away, yet we'll see it tomorrow night?
Ever heard of wormholes? or Jacob's ladder? or the windows of heaven?
Ah, if science can't explain it, try miracles. Sorry, why would God resort to millions of miracles to make millions of galaxies look old when they weren't old? Wouldn't that be deceptive? If your God is deceptive, why believe a word he says?Can I turn on a faucet here on Earth, and the water come out of a faucet on Alpha Centauri instantly?
If God wills it -- yes I can.
I know I'm being facetious with my examples, but you need to see the point I'm making.
Can God make a [hologram?] star appear and lead a contingent of men from the east of Israel, right up to the exact address of the house that Jesus is living in; yet no one else can see it?
Just so you know, miracles came before science ever existed.Ah, if science can't explain it, try miracles.
I don't know about "looking old," but I know they're far away.doubtingmerle said:Sorry, why would God resort to millions of miracles to make millions of galaxies look old when they weren't old?
No.doubtingmerle said:Wouldn't that be deceptive?
Good question.doubtingmerle said:If your God is deceptive, why believe a word he says?
That's fine with me.doubtingmerle said:Sorry, the heavens and earth are very old.
I hope you realize that I'm not a YEC.doubtingmerle said:The only way one can continue to claim they are young is to ignore the evidence.
I heard it was seven the other day ..Yes.
In six days, God created the heaven and the earth.
In science class?I heard it was seven the other day ..
None of this makes the slightest effort to address what I said at my site. If God would repeat endless miracles such that starlight from countless galaxies looked like it had travelled billions of years, when it has not, that would be deceptive.Just so you know, miracles came before science ever existed.I don't know about "looking old," but I know they're far away.
If they look old to you, then maybe that age was embedded?No.
God didn't have to resort to deception to configure His universe like it is.
If you see deception in God's handiwork, perhaps you need to reevaluate your perspective.
Good question.That's fine with me.
If the heavens and earth are very old, God willed it that way.
But no matter how old they are, they have only been in existence for 6025 years.
In other words, they came into existence old; they didn't grow old.I hope you realize that I'm not a YEC.
But you're so wrong in other areas, I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise.
Not if He had a reason for doing so -- (not that He would need one though).If God would repeat endless miracles such that starlight from countless galaxies looked like it had travelled billions of years, when it has not, that would be deceptive.
Why would God miraculously intervene in the starlight of billions of stars, such that all our attempts to study them showed that the light had traveled for billions of years, but the light had only traveled 6000 years?Not if He had a reason for doing so -- (not that He would need one though).
I agree that is what true science is about —well, that, plain curiosity and a lot of hard work research. But that is not what I hear.The physical constants and the various physical laws constrain what's 'possible' from a scientific viewpoint.
The 'you can't prove me wrong' thing is likely to be a challenge to the philosophical stance one is adopting. Proofs can only be valid in relation to assumed (or logical) truths.
(As I mentioned before, there are no such going-in 'assumptions' in science). Science isn't about proving or disproving anything. Its about testing, predictions and utility value.
'Self-existent' may be a human declaration but it is intended of a real fact. Fact does not depend on anyone knowing about it, to be fact.It takes a human mind to communicate what is meant by 'existent' in that statement. All one has to do is ask what is meant by the word and then watch the evidence being produced by that obviously human mind. (Even AIs are based on human characteristics and functions distilled by a human mind somewhere).
'Self-existent' (or 'self-evident'), requires a human observer ... or; a human thinking, human communicative alien, I suppose .. (which is a pretty dicey proposition, although it's testable).
Don't believe all that you hear then.I agree that is what true science is about —well, that, plain curiosity and a lot of hard work research. But that is not what I hear.
A fact is more just a convenient category of knowledge. The 'how' something becomes 'fact' is the more interesting conversation .. (IMO).Mark Quayle said:'Self-existent' may be a human declaration but it is intended of a real fact. Fact does not depend on anyone knowing about it, to be fact.
Who is the audience for 'a fact', when there's no-one to know about it being one, then?Mark Quayle said:Fact does not depend on anyone knowing about it, to be fact.
What I responded to was you saying you see two possible causes. Both involved a supposed first cause, and none of the others you refer to in your article. So, you ignored them. Notice I said, "here, at least", in my comment —not, "there, in your article". Who isn't reading?Once again you simply ignore what I write and claim to be speaking for me. Once again, what I actually said at the site that you claim to have read is:
What is the ultimate thing that drove this all? We don’t know. Perhaps there is an infinite series of causation that never ends. Or perhaps, at root, there is a circular causation where A causes B that causes C that causes A ad infinitum. Or perhaps there is some root cause of everything, A, that simply is, and could not be otherwise. Perhaps the root cause is nothing more than, “Things happen.”
Regardless of whether the root cause is a distinct something (A) or a circular something (ABC), an infinite regress, or things just happening, let’s call this root cause of any physics the first cause.
This first cause could either have a mind or not have a mind.
If it has a mind, how could that mind remember anything before there was any matter that can be arranged to save the memories? All memories we know of (brains, computers, books, etc.) consist of an arrangement of atoms that document things. How can a creator’s mind do this, if there is not yet any matter to arrange to preserve those memories?
If the first cause, the process that started it all, had a mind, we should probably call it God. If it didn’t have a mind, we probably should not call it God. Source
To put the plan of salvation in the stars.Why would God miraculously intervene in the starlight of billions of stars, such that all our attempts to study them showed that the light had traveled for billions of years, but the light had only traveled 6000 years?
More like miraculous.doubtingmerle said:That would be deceptive.
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?