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.
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.
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?
The mainstream? You should stop tilting against windmills.
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.
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.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.
.
What...you've never been to Disneyland?
You obviously have not been considering all that has been posted or witnessed, and all of the factors.Then show us the verifiable evidence.
You obviously have not been considering all that has been posted or witnessed, and all of the factors.
What alternative cosmologies should they be teaching in ethics classes?The question is which alternatives are they teaching to new students, and why those options? Are any of them devoid of metaphysical constructs?
An alleged "awareness" that you cannot present in a falsifiable manner.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>
Indeed, where you tried to conflate the human brain's ability to recognize patterns and the development of artificial pattern recognition.It happens *constantly* in "science", in fact I showed you where it's used in "science" and in robotics.
If I put a high school kid in a sweaty god suit, is that who God is?
You are responsible for the straw-man arguments you make.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.
Are you unfamiliar with inflation theory? Wiki has a page on it.Who's exact work did he built upon in your opinion?
Or, he didn't.Ya, because he personally invented the whole concept in his overactive imagination!
Let me know when the Christian God shows up in your lab. Post pictures.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.
An alleged "awareness" that you cannot present in a falsifiable manner.
Something like this?
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)...
So he would look something like you? Are you god of your own life? I see...
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.God doesn't exist in our universe? God doesn't affect anything that goes on in this universe?
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.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?
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?