Name It

[Mr Laurier]

See posts 57 and 59. Or not.

saw them.
You mean the imaginary slaves, made up by Cecil B Demille?

 

[sjastro]

saw them.
You mean the imaginary slaves, made up by Cecil B Demille?

Cecil might have been inspired by the Greek historian Herodotus.
A Description of Khufu's Rule in Ancient Egypt | Synonym

 

[Mr Laurier]

Cecil might have been inspired by the Greek historian Herodotus.
A Description of Khufu's Rule in Ancient Egypt | Synonym

Herodotus had a reputation for making up details

 

[BPPLEE]

The Egyptians who built the Great Pyramid in the 4th dynasty did not have the wheel.
The wheel made its appearance in Egypt some 800 years later.

It sure would have saved them a lot of work

 

[sjastro]

It sure would have saved them a lot of work

Along with lacking the wheel the builders of the 4th dynasty pyramids were using copper tools to carve out limestone blocks for the construction.
Despite being an early bronze age culture, the Egyptians of this period did not use harder bronze metal as tools.

 

[Mr Laurier]

It sure would have saved them a lot of work

I think the work was the point.
Fostering a sense of camaraderie among workers from far flung villages, by having them work together as a team.
How REAL nation building works.

 

[Astrophile]

In your opinion, what is the greatest scientific discovery, invention, tool, breakthrough, idea, attempt, contribution, mistake, catastrophe, hoax, joke, or whatever of all time?

Two possibilities:
(1) Kepler's discovery of the three laws of planetary motion.
(2) The discovery by Bunsen and Kirchhoff that every element had its unique characteristic spectrum.

 

[jayem]

In your opinion, what is the greatest scientific discovery, invention, tool, breakthrough, idea, attempt, contribution, mistake, catastrophe, hoax, joke, or whatever of all time?

The greatest tool is written language.

The greatest idea is that the universe operates by purely natural processes.

The greatest statement of the scientific approach is from Marie Curie:

"Dans la vie, rien n'est à craindre, tout est à comprendre"

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.

 

[Gottservant]

The greatest discovery, is the discovery of the Holy Spirit.

So kudos goes to Jesus for being the first to discover Him!

If He hadn't discovered Him, there would be no details...

 

[Kylie]

The greatest discovery, is the discovery of the Holy Spirit.

So kudos goes to Jesus for being the first to discover Him!

If He hadn't discovered Him, there would be no details...

To be fair, the OP did specify SCIENTIFIC discovery...

 

[Gottservant]

To be fair, the OP did specify SCIENTIFIC discovery...

All facts are scientific.

 

[Kylie]

All facts are scientific.

In order to be scientific, a fact has to be testable in a scientific manner. The Holy Spirit can not be tested in this way.

 

[Gottservant]

In order to be scientific, a fact has to be testable in a scientific manner. The Holy Spirit can not be tested in this way.

You are assuming that?

I think what you are missing, is that the test is counter-intuitive?

In other words you are missing that the need to test Him, only proves that to you, "tests are real".

The more I keep from testing the Holy Spirit, therefore, the more He is able to reveal.

You may never get beyond "I really tested", but that does not change the fact that you have the choice whether to test the words that the Holy Spirit has inspired (that is, irrespective of whether the Holy Spirit wants to be real, for your or anyone else's sake).

 

[Kylie]

You are assuming that?

I think what you are missing, is that the test is counter-intuitive?

In other words you are missing that the need to test Him, only proves that to you, "tests are real".

The more I keep from testing the Holy Spirit, therefore, the more He is able to reveal.

You may never get beyond "I really tested", but that does not change the fact that you have the choice whether to test the words that the Holy Spirit has inspired (that is, irrespective of whether the Holy Spirit wants to be real, for your or anyone else's sake).

When it comes to science, intuition plays no part. There are many things that are counterintuitive but are nonetheless scientific facts.

I am not assuming that a scientific fdact must be testable in a scientific manner. That's literally the definition of science. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it's not science. There is no way to test the Holy Spirit using the scientific method. Therefore, any claims you can make about the Holy Spirit are not scientific in nature, and thus you can't say the Holy Spirit is a scientific fact.

 

[Gottservant]

When it comes to science, intuition plays no part. There are many things that are counterintuitive but are nonetheless scientific facts.

Without intuition, no fact would be any different from any other. But I am not making a statement about intuition.

I am not assuming that a scientific fdact must be testable in a scientific manner. That's literally the definition of science. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it's not science. There is no way to test the Holy Spirit using the scientific method. Therefore, any claims you can make about the Holy Spirit are not scientific in nature, and thus you can't say the Holy Spirit is a scientific fact.

The test of the Holy Spirit, is whether you are interested in God.

You don't need the same method as someone else, to perform the test of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kylie]

Without intuition, no fact would be any different from any other. But I am not making a statement about intuition.

No. It is not intuition that makes the difference, but evidence. If there is no evidence for a particular thing, then we can not say that the thing in question is a scientific fact.

The test of the Holy Spirit, is whether you are interested in God.

People have been interested in many things that are not scientific facts.

You don't need the same method as someone else, to perform the test of the Holy Spirit.

But there is NO test at all that can be done on the Holy Spirit that is scientific in nature.

 

[Gottservant]

No. It is not intuition that makes the difference, but evidence. If there is no evidence for a particular thing, then we can not say that the thing in question is a scientific fact.

The evidence is a change in someone else's character.

You are setting the bar too high, for "proof" - Jesus doesn't set the bar that high (and He still went to the cross).

People have been interested in many things that are not scientific facts.

Is the cross a fact?

But there is NO test at all that can be done on the Holy Spirit that is scientific in nature.

You said it yourself: "scientific in nature" is suggestive of fact 'enough'.

Weighing one fact against another, does not require one fact to be explicitly greater than all.

So yes, you are right there is no need for a test that renders all facts true or false - as would be the standard, if the Holy Spirit had to prove Himself to all men.

 

[Kylie]

The evidence is a change in someone else's character.

That is not scientific proof.

You are setting the bar too high, for "proof" - Jesus doesn't set the bar that high (and He still went to the cross).

It's not a problem for me if religion doesn't offer any scientific evidence.

Is the cross a fact?

Is it a symbol for Christianity? Yes.

Did a demigod named Jesus die on one? I remain dubious.

You said it yourself: "scientific in nature" is suggestive of fact 'enough'.

Weighing one fact against another, does not require one fact to be explicitly greater than all.

So yes, you are right there is no need for a test that renders all facts true or false - as would be the standard, if the Holy Spirit had to prove Himself to all men.

I don't know how you got there, but what you got was most certainly NOT what I was talking about.

It's like you took my words, jumbled them up, rearranged them into something else and assumed that the new word jumble is what I said.

 

[Gottservant]

That is not scientific proof.

But it is scientifically repeatable?

I don't know how you got there, but what you got was most certainly NOT what I was talking about.

You said "scientific in nature" that implied a partiality to "instinct".

It's like you took my words, jumbled them up, rearranged them into something else and assumed that the new word jumble is what I said.

You are welcome to jumble your own words, if you think that will bring you closer to "Evolution" (within whatever context, is relevant to you?)?

 

[Kylie]

But it is scientifically repeatable?

No. Judging the change in a person's character is a subjective opinion, not a scientific fact.

You said "scientific in nature" that implied a partiality to "instinct".

What are you going on about? You aren't making any sense. You are assuming that you actually know what evolution is, but you don't, and it's leading you to utterly meaningless conclusions. That in itself isn't so bad, but you seem to have an absolute refusal to learn what evolution actually is.

You are welcome to jumble your own words, if you think that will bring you closer to "Evolution" (within whatever context, is relevant to you?)?

Again, what you are saying just makes no sense whatsoever.