SHEEPEOPLE

[joshua 1 9]

How do you know this?

This is basic dispensationalism. People even send each other Christmas cards talking about the 1000 year reign of Christ. This is a time when "the government shall be upon His shoulder". Every year the nations will send a representative to Jerusalem. They will go out to the great battle field to see where the great battle took place. "Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind." Isa 66:24

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have a problem with general relativity?

Why was general relativity accepted by scientists? Was it because of the evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

Why was general relativity accepted by scientists? Was it because of the evidence?

For one thing the problem with heliocentric.

 

[Michael]

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

As far as I know I haven't made any such arguments in this thread.

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

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


Or, he didn't.

Or he did. You still didn't explain exactly which work you think he 'built' upon and how, vs. what he simply invented in his wild imagination. Why exactly do you figure that Guth got to "name" his invisible friend anyway?

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

Pick any picture you like, you'll see part of him.

 

[ScottA]

If God affects our universe in some way, why can't we detect that effect using science?

Science has not come up with a tool that can gauge the supernatural, mainly because of self-limitation. That would be like an electrician trying to detect a current with a pitchfork. Either he would get nothing, or he'd be shocked.

You seem to act as if you have considered it, so why don't you present the evidence.

You mean finite evidence of an infinite truth? It doesn't work that way. The best that humans can do is to explain, which they have done for millennia...but you all don't want to hear it.

 

[klutedavid]

You can't prove God scientifically. People have to find Him themselves.

Hello Strathos.

You made the following statement and a very interesting statement at that.

You can't prove God scientifically.

Science is an ideology, the ideology of science itself, is based on many grand assumptions.

An assumption by the way, is a belief that something is true, without their being the necessary
proof.

For example, a primary assumption that science accepts without any proof, would be the
following.

Science assumes that there exists, a physical and natural world, and that this physical world
may be examined and understood. That is one of the beliefs of science, and is purely an
assumption. This assumed physical entity, the world, can never be proven to be a physical entity
though.

Science must hold this assumption without proof, in order to pursue the scientific process.

So logically, if science can make grand assumptions, then so can everyone else.

So to prove that God exist's scientifically, is as simple as assuming like science, that He does
exist. Which ultimately is as much proof by any definition, that the scientific system of thought
could ever provide.

 

[Michael]

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

Until you can demonstrate it's a misrepresentation, neither.

 

[ScottA]

Then why did you use Disneyland as your example?

Because you used fantasy as your example...not a very productive side trip.

 

[ScottA]

I am betting that you have a very human-centered view of the universe?

Not at all. My view is God-centered, and the universe is like make-believe temporary passion, soon to be complete and thrown in the trash.

 

[Michael]

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.

Bingo. That's pretty much the credo of atheism in fact. Even if you subscribe to BB theory, that's exactly where you end up.

 

[Davian]

That's because it cannot be falsified. Because something cannot be falsified does not make it untrue <snip>

I never said that. The burden lies with him to demonstrate that this "awareness" that he perceives is not simply imagined.

 

[Davian]

Bingo. That's pretty much the credo of atheism in fact. Even if you subscribe to BB theory, that's exactly where you end up.

Francis Collins, evangelical Christian, and American physician-geneticist:

"Collins uncritically accepts and summarizes the standard big bang story (pp. 71–78), then discusses the Anthropic Principle"

Harmony and discord: A review of Francis Collins' book The Language of God

 

[Michael]

I never said that. The burden lies with him to demonstrate that this "awareness" that he perceives is not simply imagined.

http://disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

Those structural and functional similarities aren't my imagination.

 

[Michael]

Francis Collins, evangelical Christian, and American physician-geneticist:

"Collins uncritically accepts and summarizes the standard big bang story (pp. 71–78), then discusses the Anthropic Principle"

Harmony and discord: A review of Francis Collins' book The Language of God

Hence my comment "Even if you subscribe to BB theory....

 

[Davian]

http://disinfo.com/2011/07/our-brains-neurons-look-exactly-like-the-structure-of-the-universe/

Those structural and functional similarities aren't my imagination.

You have not demonstrated "functional similarities".

 

[ob77]

On many debates here the scientific community demands that scientific evidence be given that would prove the existence of God.

I have tried to reason and suggest that internal evidence could not possibly prove external matters. I mean, doesn't that make perfect sense? Still, the demand is the same.

There have been two analogies that have come out of recent discussions that I think are worth offering as reason, if not evidence:

1. The New World: History shows that the naysayers of the time stood on the shores of discovery and poo pooed the ideas of western exploration. There were those who looked at things positively, and those who looked at things negatively. History often proves the skeptic wrong. So, the whole historic lesson makes a good example in completely, natural and internal terms. The only thing that would have been required to consider whether the prospects were believable or not, would be a little bit of history, science, and a spirit of adventure...and maybe faith, but not even. But now that we are on the shores of an even bigger step of possibilities, once again there are the naysayers poo pooing. To me, that says, that personality type simply has not learned from history, and given a more complex equation, hasn't changed a thing.
2. Sheep's Tail: A bit of a self-pun on Christians, this analogy asserts that the external realm of God is like unto a sheep, and the internal realm of space, time, and matter, is like unto a tail. The tail was created as a point where God would PM evil all over his tail...and then...cut it off. The unseen spiritual sheep is God, the visible tail is made up of the universe and all the little sheep are his flock made in his image. Among the sheep then came the Lamb of God, who, after taking on the evil (sins) of the world, was cut off.

...Both, are analogies made within the realm of scientific capabilities and understanding. One is from recorded history, while the other is simply a synopsis of the biblical story. That may be the best we can do. And realistically, who within the scientific community could go outside the realm of space, time and matter, to view an overview of the proof...anyway?

 

[Davian]

Yet pattern recognition is an important part of science. Not only do they "look' the same, they have functional similarities too, starting with the fact that they are both excellent *conductors* of current. If current carrying structures in our physical forms can give rise to awareness, then why wouldn't such a process be possible at virtually *any* scale?

To *any* scale? How well do you think your brain would work if we were to add days or years of propagation delays to the neurones in your brain?

 

[Davian]

The end.

This universe was created for a finite purpose, most of which has been fulfilled.

Didn't this happen already?

Time is not on the side of the skeptic.

The evidence appears to be. Belief is not a conscious choice. I have not seen anything that might convince me that gods are more than characters in books.

 

[Michael]

To *any* scale? How well do you think your brain would work if we were to add days or years of propagation delays to the neurones in your brain?

Plasma physics maths and principles scale to many multiples actually. Besides, there are more active circuits visible in the solar atmosphere every second of every day than exist inside of my brain, and that's only the circuits I see on the *outside* of the sun. What makes you think "awareness" is a completely centralized processes in the first place?

 

[Michael]

You have not demonstrated "functional similarities".

You mean "current flow" in 'circuits'? Have you read *any* of Alfven's work? Birkeland?