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.
Then I'll tell you the same thing I told the others.
Show me that one plasma laboratory experiment where they treated plasma gravitationally and not electromagnetically
That's why I said "what evidence" do you rely on for "your belief" it is not sufficient to justify "a belief" in God?
Treating 95% of the universe like a state of matter it is not?
Asking I believe that birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species?
That's why I asked what evidence you rely on for this belief of yours? I've yet to see any for either one of those claims by cosmologists or evolutionists.
If that's what your idea of evolution is, you don't know what evolution is.
Religions need to adjust to what science brings, especially when it comes to the Creation Story. The Biblical Creation story no longer offers a functional cosmology. It doesn't work in today's world. A new Creation story is being offered by science, and it's up to us Lovers of God to weave a functional cosmology from the window that science offers into God's Creation.But they are incorrect to do so...
I'm in total agreement with you. But I suspect with a slight difference. When it comes to God's Truth of this Creation, that can be found with in life itself. And science is opening up that window. It's up to us to see, experience and bring to life the sacred and the Divine presence that we see through that window into Creation....because God and the truth are immovable.
Hang on to it as you will, but the world is moving on. The Biblical Creation story is no longer accurate or even relevant in today's world. A new cosmology is taking it's place. The question left hanging is how are religions such as Christianity going to work with the new cosmology so that they stay relevant into the future?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.
Again you talk as if you are completely unfamiliar with the theory.
Go ahead and post them, so we can check them out.
And then applies methodologies to weed out the false positives. It may be that all you have are those false positives.
Indeed. Why else would you compare such dissimilar subjects such as personal gods and cosmology?
It's your credibility on the line, not mine.
You did not address my question.
Well, not really... it was pretty conclusively demonstrated to be expanding long ago.
There aren't any legitimate scientists I know of that would seriously argue that idea.
What the hell does that mean? Gravity is there, and it affects everything, without anybody needing to "treat" anything "gravitationally".
Non-belief is the default position, or null hypothesis to any claim.
Rejection of a belief does not require justification when the belief in question is not supported by evidence.
How is this relevant? The existence or non-existence of dark matter has no bearing on my theological views.
As for your cosmological idea, pretty well any astrophysicist would agree dark matter at this point is an unproven hypothesis.
Aug. 21, 2006
RELEASE : 06-297
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate?
How am I to know you (or someone else) did not simply fabricate that story?
You do not get to require anything. You do not know God.I had a similar experience as a teenager, which is when I decided to become a follower of Jesus. However, later in life I came to understand other dynamics of my experience and the incredible power of the human mind. I met others who had these apparently supernatural experiences. Even later in life, I learned how to manipulate others into having "supernatural" experiences. This causes me to re-narrate the earlier experiences, as I know see the play within the play as serving a much different purpose.
Anyway, I don't require empirical evidence for every claim. I may suspend belief, but I am definitely open to a variety of evidence. Yet, for highly specific claims that should be testable, I do require evidence. If you were to claim that you had an "out of body" type experience, I would be willing to accept this. When you claim that you met a god in this experience who was the author of the bible, this raises questions. Which bible? The Orthodox one with the most books considered canon or the Catholic one with apocrypha or the Evangelical one that rejects the apocrypha? When you say this god was the author of this text, what, exactly, are you claiming? Did he dictate? Inspire? What about the copies of the texts that don't agree and the problems with translation into English? You are making quite a claim there that you personally encounter a being that authored this ancient book, and that kind of claim does require evidence. Your claim also breeds questions about the nature of this being. If you told me you saw a unicorn, I would not doubt that you believe you saw a unicorn. But if you told me this unicorn wanted me to you $50, I would need more evidence. Also, if you claimed you saw a square circle, I would likely refute you on this matter. Either you have redefined the terms "square" and "circle," or you are confused about what you saw, or else you will need much more evidence to convince me than you would with the unicorn since what you are suggesting defies our current understanding.
Says you.I have just demonstrated that you don't have access to infinite knowledge then. Therefore, your claim is refuted.
Infinite evidence cannot be contained within a finite setting or mind. You must change, or remain below the horizon where what you ask cannot be perceived.Cite your evidence please
You don't know what you are talking about. You and science are attempting to re-write history and creation...and what you obviously don't even have a clue about...is "It is finished." The park closes at midnight.Religions need to adjust to what science brings, especially when it comes to the Creation Story. The Biblical Creation story no longer offers a functional cosmology. It doesn't work in today's world. A new Creation story is being offered by science, and it's up to us Lovers of God to weave a functional cosmology from the window that science offers into God's Creation.
I'm in total agreement with you. But I suspect with a slight difference. When it comes to God's Truth of this Creation, that can be found with in life itself. And science is opening up that window. It's up to us to see, experience and bring to life the sacred and the Divine presence that we see through that window into Creation.
Hang on to it as you will, but the world is moving on. The Biblical Creation story is no longer accurate or even relevant in today's world. A new cosmology is taking it's place. The question left hanging is how are religions such as Christianity going to work with the new cosmology so that they stay relevant into the future?
.
You have forgotten what you read?Bah. I read his first paper in the 80's. It's been decades at this point.
Projecting what?Apparently you're projecting again.
He conceived the label. Seriously, do you not know this?You never did answer my question. Why do you suppose that Alan Guth got to name his invisible friend?
Each of those is a picture of a Christian God?
Where did I ridicule it?<snip false dichotomy>
Nobody doubts that accuracy is required as well as pattern recognition, but pattern recognition is an integral part of science, not something to be ridiculed. Without it, there is no scientific progress to start with.
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?