Nihilist Virus
Infectious idea
Gah! I'm not complaining about 'science' as a whole, I'm complaining about dark matter claims specifically! In that specific case, astronomers haven't made any accurate "predictions". In fact they've failed every "test" conceivable in the lab. They've failed more observational "tests" than they pass too.
These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not
I'm not inclined to fact check these claims at the moment. So let's assume you're right. Let's assume you're right about everything. What then?
Religion certainly does 'predict' that God interacts with humans on Earth and therefore humans should have "experiences" that they attribute to God. They do seem to have such experiences as we can see from human writings throughout recorded human history, and the fact that the majority of humans believe in God even to this day.
Religion predicts that God will interact with humans. Humans claim to interact with God in mutually contradictory ways. How do we TEST to see if they are interacting with God? Why do you suddenly not give half a shekel about TESTS when it comes to religion's predictions?
Furthermore, can you perhaps explain to me why humanity invented many religions back when the worldwide population was low, and yet now when the population is high we're inventing far fewer religions? That is exactly the opposite trend that your model would predict.
It's asinine that you're *assuming* some sort of gravitational influence from a non-existent "dark matter", while ignoring recorded influence of "God" on many different human beings throughout human history.
Again, I see no influence of God, nor have you even explained what we should be looking for. Unless, for you, mere claims are sufficient. In that case, there is abundant evidence that alien abductions are real.
So according to that logic I *win* by "definition" because I defined God as the universe and definitions cannot be falsified.
According to that logic? So... you think that definitions can actually be true or false? There are well-defined terms and ill-defined terms, but there is no notion of falsehood here. You can't just grab a rubber True/False stamp and just stamp everything.
In mathematics, a similar notion occurs with numbers and inequalities. You actually can have two numbers which are not related under the "<" relation. For example,
1<i is false;
1>i is false;
1=i is false;
and i=(-1)^(1/2) is neither true nor false, but rather is a definition.
Any belief or concept can be right or wrong. Not all beliefs are necessarily "falsifiable" however.
Right.
And I suspect that you are very young and very naive.
Please, don't violate my safe space with your verbal abuse. I'm a delicate snowflake.
Whether you "made it up" or not, you're still trying to stuff that definition down my throat instead of dealing with the specific (purely empirical) definition that I gave you.
Again, I'm not compelling you to use any definition. Although, yes, I did, at the very start, assume that you believe in the normal notion of God. And, of course, this was the one time where that assumption caused a problem.
But you are absolutely lying when you say that I won't deal with the definition you gave me. I did deal with it by saying that it accomplishes nothing. You're assuming the point in question: that God exists. I'm simply saying that making this assumption bypasses the part where we agree on the rules of the game and even the part where we play the game and instead skips us right to where we just declare you the winner. So congratulations on your Little League participation trophy.
I suggest that you give it a rest and tone down your ego drivel for awhile and the conversation will become a lot more enjoyable. If you keep hurling personal insults at people they'll eventually just write you off as being childish and they'll stop responding to you. That doesn't mean that you 'won' the debate, you just 'won' yourself some further isolation.
If you are incapable of handling the published materials associated with this topic, then you probably should have stayed out of this conversation in the first place because you're obviously in way over your head. What's the point of *pretending* that you have enough knowledge of this topic to demonstrate any point you're trying to make? You certainly haven't been able to explain a way to falsify all possible exotic matter claims so far.
The only one who shouldn't be talking about this is you because you don't even know the absolute basics of how definitions, data, and hypotheses work, as has been shown repeatedly.
That simply means that I love Christ and I honor his teachings. That does *not* mean that I buy all of *your* (or anyone else's) definitions of God or "Christianity".
OK, go and sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow Christ. Er, no, never mind... people who "follow Christ" or "honor his teachings" never do that one. At least, they don't do it for Christ. Now, if he had told someone to enjoy a lolly pop each day, I'd bet all Christians would be doing it. Oh that's right, you guys all definitely do eat crackers and drink grape juice. How surprising that you all do the easy things but not the hard things. Shows how limited your love is for Christ, and how little you ultimately do care in the grand scheme of your life.
Grandmother back from the dead after spending three days in a morgue | Daily Mail Online
With the advent of modern medicine, people come back from the dead all the time. That isn't what makes Christ important to me. It's his teachings and his influence on my life that are important to me personally, not "parlor tricks".
You are the exception to every rule I can think of. I'll give you that.
It seems like you're intent on building a case based on what you personally perceive to be a "Christian" rather than anything I've actually said.
I do pay attention to what you're saying, and that's probably a problem at this point.
Actually it's not physically impossible to come back from clinical death as many near death experiences have demonstrated.
Coming back from the dead is not the same as coming back from near death. You have no point here.
So *exactly* how would 'space' expand in the first place?
Dunno, that's why it's called dark energy.
Ah, no ego nonsense to deal with. How refreshing.
If that is true, you're unqualified to debate most of my physical definition of God because it's primarily based upon published and peer reviewed scientific papers. There are a few "leaps of faith" on my part (at least one major one FB mentioned) that you could comment on, but all the electrical and circuit oriented aspects are supported by published works.
But I at least understand the fundamentals of definitions, data, and hypotheses so I will have a leg up on you in any scientific discussion whatsoever.
No, your understanding of the topic of cosmology is trivial, so you perceive Panentheism to be trivial. It's actually a very scientifically complex topic. To even debate the merits of that specific cosmology theory, you also have to know quite a bit about LCDM as well to even be able to compare the two ways of viewing and describing the physical universe.
Panentheism is a fictional fabrication for which there is no evidence.
I'm sure there's an intent at an insult in there, but "Ok".
Actually I can in fact "see" the material in the circuits because that material is not nearly as 'dark' as you (or astronomers) imagine.
Half the universe’s missing matter has just been finally found
Minds require brains. Brains require a lot of energy input and radiate a lot of energy. We are alive because of the sun's energy. The universe has to waste a lot of energy so we can have minds.
A mind on the scale of the universe has no source for energy. Any energy source would be minuscule at best. Combined with the size of the mind you're talking about, a single thought would take ages to occur. So how exactly we're supposed to detect this, or intercept a single thought, is beyond me.
Upvote
0