SHEEPEOPLE

[OliviaMay]

And the first one on the list had repeatedly told you all about your pseudo-science of how you treat plasma in space. And Birkeland also told you you were wrong. And Peratt and on and on and on.....

But go ahead - show me one single plasma laboratory experiment in which gravitational theory was used to describe the plasma behavior.

Just one, and I'll accept any false claim you want to make. But if you can't show even one - then you give up the Fairie Dust. Deal?

Sorry sir, but you made the claim that there are no plasma physicists. I showed you that to be no true. Don't attribute your lack of research on me.

 

[Michael]

The mainstream? You should stop tilting against windmills.

I'm not. At worst case I'm complaining about one cosmology model in particular that's mostly metaphysics and happens to be popular at the moment.

If you want to discuss academics read what academics and physicists say. Stop with building straw men and lamenting things you construct in your mind.

You have things 100 percent backwards. Guth constructed inflation in his own mind. Likewise the folks that gave us 'dark energy' based their entire claim upon a premise that has since been falsified, namely the existence of 'standard candles' which we now know aren't actually standard after all. Exotic matter theory serves only one specific purpose at the moment, namely to save one otherwise falsified cosmology model from falsification. Space expansion is a construct of the mind that never occurs in any lab on Earth. I didn't construct these metaphysical kludges in my own mind, they were stuffed into my mind by people who literally "made it up" and told me it was "scientific".

 

[ScottA]

It's true. Science is limited to the physical. That's the box it's in. Religion is in it's own box, one that is spiritual in nature. But religion can and I believe needs to break out of that box. For instance, I believe that if Christianity is be relevant in the future, it needs to develop a different cosmology, one that incorporates scientific discoveries. Otherwise it will become less and less of a factor. I'm not suggesting leaving God behind. Rather for the lover of God, it's seeing God's hand in the physical life processes that the sciences opens the window for us to see. The creation story is the best place to start because science is bringing a new creation story to light. And the world is in the process of embracing that new creation story. It seems to me as an opportunity for religions to bring science into our spiritual lives by embracing the new creation story. And I think it's important for all of us if that were to happen.

.

Unfortunately, that would all be misleading. I could see where "religion" would benefit with that approach, and in fact many religious groups are already making adjustments to appeal to the general science-minded public. But they are incorrect to do so...because God and the truth are immovable. Alternatively, those who actually know the truth and are not just in religion for the social benefits, are attempting to simply be honest, tell the truth: God's creation story is accurate, and science is only correct on bits and pieces. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that most people who love God, also love many things about science. In fact, even Jesus said, "Render to Caesar (to the world) that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's." What would actually be important for all of us, is if the science-minded, would agree that each has its own area of expertise...and honor it.

 

[ScottA]

Fantasies are not demonstrable, either.

What...you've never been to Disneyland?

 

[Loudmouth]

What...you've never been to Disneyland?

If I put a high school kid in a sweaty god suit, is that who God is?

 

[ScottA]

Then show us the verifiable evidence.

You obviously have not been considering all that has been posted or witnessed, and all of the factors.

The evidence that we as witnesses have is not something we can share, it's personal. It's like this: If you were asking me to verify a city you had never been to, but I had. Then you could either believe what I have to say, go through my travel records, or just go there. But if you refuse to go there without verification and start talk about things that pertain to the city and I pop in and make corrections, and you deny it based on the fact that I can't verify a place that is beyond your horizon...then you are just unwilling to believe, or go...and you get what you deserve.

The point is, it's beyond your horizon. Meanwhile, if your were talking about such a city and headed off toward the wrong horizon....should I say anything...or just let you wander off?

But really, since it is beyond your horizon...why would you be so defiant about receiving information without first making demands? That's like a guy not asking for directions, and driving around in circles 'cause he's too headstrong (and yet ignorant).

 

[Loudmouth]

You obviously have not been considering all that has been posted or witnessed, and all of the factors.

Yes, I have. I considered them and found them all to be unverifiable and untrustworthy. When your evidence for something is indistinguishable for that something not existing, then you have a serious problem. This is the problem that Sagan covered in his essay on Dragon's that live in garages.

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

So what is the difference between an invisible and completely undetectable deity and one that doesn't exist?

 

[Davian]

The question is which alternatives are they teaching to new students, and why those options? Are any of them devoid of metaphysical constructs?

What alternative cosmologies should they be teaching in ethics classes?

 

[Davian]

So the only attribute I'm ascribing to it is "awareness", and even that shows up on Earth in a variety of forms. Compare <snip false dichotomy>

An alleged "awareness" that you cannot present in a falsifiable manner.

 

[Davian]

It happens *constantly* in "science", in fact I showed you where it's used in "science" and in robotics.

Indeed, where you tried to conflate the human brain's ability to recognize patterns and the development of artificial pattern recognition.

 

[Davian]

You make that assumption only because it suits you to do so.

I can only comment on what you post. Are your misrepresentations deliberate, or accidental?

 

[pshun2404]

If I put a high school kid in a sweaty god suit, is that who God is?

Can you be more specific as to what a sweaty god suit would be?

 

[Davian]

Which exact "behavior" did you take exception to? I get the feeling you just don't like the fact that science isn't limited to empirical physics and you blame me for it.

You are responsible for the straw-man arguments you make.

Who's exact work did he built upon in your opinion?

Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory? Wiki has a page on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Precursors

Ya, because he personally invented the whole concept in his overactive imagination!

Or, he didn't.

And yet you reject God due to your perception of a lack of a cause/effect justification? That sounds down right hypocritical from my vantage point.

Let me know when the Christian God shows up in your lab. Post pictures.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you be more specific as to what a sweaty god suit would be?

Something like this?

 

[Davian]

Need to know? No.

lol. Claims of knowledge are easy to make.

 

[pshun2404]

An alleged "awareness" that you cannot present in a falsifiable manner.

That's because it cannot be falsified. Because something cannot be falsified does not make it untrue only testable as an aspect of materiality. My preference for violet over true purple is not falsifiable yet is true. Why the kettle o my stove is boiling is not falsifiable (in fact can not be proven or even demonstrated by science) but it is...

What a person believes of feels is not falsifiable yet true. What they claim or say is what they believe or feel may be falsifiable but what they truly believe or feel is not (yet it is the truth)...

Are you you? Show how this is falsifiable???? Surely you are not some other who is not you....

 

[pshun2404]

Something like this?

So he would look something like you? Are you god of your own life? I see...

 

[Loudmouth]

That's because it cannot be falsified. Because something cannot be falsified does not make it untrue only testable as an aspect of materiality. My preference for violet over true purple is not falsifiable yet is true. Why the kettle o my stove is boiling is not falsifiable (in fact can not be proven or even demonstrated by science) but it is...

What a person believes of feels is not falsifiable yet true. What they claim or say is what they believe or feel may be falsifiable but what they truly believe or feel is not (yet it is the truth)...

The fact that people can believe in non-existent deities is true. Therefore, belief alone is not evidence that a deity really exists.

 

[Loudmouth]

So he would look something like you? Are you god of your own life? I see...

Perhaps you are too young for the reference?

A more recent reference would be this one.

 

[ScottA]

God doesn't exist in our universe? God doesn't affect anything that goes on in this universe?

God is omnipresent, and not only does he effect anything, he is overseer. But what I was referring to is not his limitation, but the limitation of this universe. It's close-circuit, so, no, we can't go outside to demonstrate how it fits into the greater scheme of things.

How many times do we have to say that empty assertions are not convincing.

Let's say you were on a jury in a murder trial. During that trial, the prosecution brought forth a witness who stated, "God told me that the suspect is guilty". Would you find the defendant guilty based solely on that testimony? Probably not, right?

The problem with claiming that our assertions are empty, is a limitation adherent to your position: You are unwilling to go outside the space, time, matter realm to consider anything beyond, and you insist on evidence that is simply not attainable there. "I don't want to go, and I don't want to know...so you must be delusional!" ...Yeah right.