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.
The reason why they claim it's a rhino is the fact in one verse it mentions one horn is bigger than the other.The most logical answer is that those myths that arose after Aurochs went extinct, turned the unicorn into a horse (made a better story), and then translators today want to turn it into a rhinoceros, because they still let mythology of one horned creatures drive their thought processes.
Then why can't science study them if they exist?
Or better yet, tell us how to distinguish between the spirits you believe in and spirits that do not exist?
The reason why they claim it's a rhino is the fact in one verse it mentions one horn is bigger than the other.
Actually, scientists have claimed to find 'proof' (not even evidence mind you) of "dark" matter simply by virtue of it's claimed 'effect' on light.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
Note that no form of exotic matter has ever been found, let alone shown to bend light in controlled experimentation. Even that effect is 'assumed' rather than demonstrated. They also simply "assume" that such exotic forms of matter not only exist, but also that exotic types of matter are a "natural" form of matter. Every quality/attribute of the supernatural/theoretical construct is simply "assumed", even whether or not it is considered to be 'natural'.
We could see if you could present your claims in an evidenced, testable, falsifiable manner. But you can't do that, can you?
My beliefs are irrelevant. What you are proposing is a false dichotomy. We could both be wrong.
Mainstream science and cosmolgy needs no defence from me.
From our own philosophy forum here:
Philosophy Forum Statement of Purpose
The Philosophy forum is for the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Epistemology is concerned with the origin and nature of knowledge, and is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Philosophy: Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. -- Concise Encyclopedia
We agree - that's probably why you reject electricity everywhere you observe it in space - you still hold to those flawed beliefs when it was thought to be supernatural - because you don't understand it.
You are one to really not be talking to anyone about electricity at all, considering you still hold to supernatural beliefs about it, believing any occurrence of it in space is supernatural.
The spirit I believe in leads me to believe in spirits. I don't know anything about spirits "that don't exist" (is there such a thing?).
I reject your Electric Universe crackpottery because science falsifies it. For example, the Cathode Sun championed by the EU community should fry astronauts with the massive amounts of radiation that it produces:
"In the 'solar cathode' electric sun model, radiation exposure at the orbit of Earth is 38,000 rads in one hour!"
http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...2/09/death-by-electric-universe-ii-solar.html
Revisiting the Solar Cathode Model
Back in the early days of my involvement with the "Electric Universe" phenomenon, I did a very simple analysis of an Electric Sun model based on the description and parameters. One of those models, where the Sun acts as a cathode, powered by electrons accelerated by a hypothesized potential difference between the heliopause and photosphere of billions of volts, were subjected to some basic analysis using fundamental conservation principles. I called this model the "Solar Capacitor" model due to its similarity to spherical capacitors studied in much of the physics literature. EU supporters sometimes call it the solar 'cathode' model and it is based on models originally proposed by Juergens (see References below) and promoted by Don Scott in The Electric Sky. My analyses of this model were summarized in a few blog posts.
That's because they ignore all that plasma in space that is bending that light - just like we observe every day in the bending of light in the atmosphere. It is plasma that deflects it near the sun.
It doesn't explain anything. It is yet another assertion.It has not been for millennia, in fact the supernatural realm of which I speak, has been considered separated by a "gulf" since the beginning...where it explains just how the natural world was "created" and was cast out of the supernatural realm.
"Okay, Davian, I accept how they used that word in the common vernacular".And yet <snip dodge>
Normal matter that was not observed to be there.Bzzt. The only "effect" they observed was lensing, and normal matter does that just fine.
I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, when your gods fail to show up in your lab.I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, and pure "faith" when it suits you too.
False again. No exotic forms of matter have ever been shown to exist, let alone cause any effect on a photon.
But "hypothesize" does not have the negative connotations that "assume" does, does it? - never miss a chance to throw some mud.Same difference.
Nice dodge.Made up types apparently.
It has not been for millennia, in fact the supernatural realm of which I speak, has been considered separated by a "gulf" since the beginning...where it explains just how the natural world was "created" and was cast out of the supernatural realm.
Scroll back to the bit about astronomers lobbying to have granite monuments installed in state buildings.Who cares?
"Okay, Davian, I guess I did say that. I won't make that mistake again."Since when did I become the only person in the world, and since when was falsification a requirement in science?No assumption, you just said "I just don't personally know how to falsify the idea yet"
Theory? All you did was slap the label of "God" on the universe and rant about mainstream cosmology.You handwaved away an entire empirical theory of God based on that objection.
It all seems to boil down to having "relationships" with things that don't actually, directly respond.You really don't grasp the whole concept of panentheism apparently.
Your questions reflect that fact.
I. do. not. know. What part of "not a conscious decision" do you not grasp? I can only relate to you what I consciously see as flaws in it.Why exactly did you reject the empirical theory of God that I put forth?
According to the hypothesis you present to us in support of your claims.Testable and falsifiable according to what
No. Are you confusing me with someone else?- you are not here to promote science or any belief, make no claims at all, remember - or did you forget that already?
I already did that. I asked that you take your claims to an dedicated science-based forum, and present your ideas for discussion, and for you to defend them. BTW, how is that going for you?So what are you going to use to see if I can present my claims in an evidenced, testable, falsifiable manner?
Again with the false dichotomy. My beliefs are not on the table.Your "beliefs"?
No doubt we both are in some aspects of any belief.
Or you are just unable to defend it, being you have no knowledge of it?
No.Fundamental beliefs, we agree. Which has nothing to do with religion - just other philosophical beliefs. So you are implying what?
Are we discussing Philosophical Theology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theology
That you cannot reach those goalposts is not indicative of their movement. They are all back there, should you wish to make another attempt.
Normal matter that was not observed to be there.
I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, when your gods fail to show up in your lab.
But "hypothesize" does not have the negative connotations that "assume" does, does it? - never miss a chance to throw some mud.
Scroll back to the bit about astronomers lobbying to have granite monuments installed in state buildings.
"Okay, Davian, I guess I did say that. I won't make that mistake again."
Theory? All you did was slap the label of "God" on the universe and rant about mainstream cosmology.
It all seems to boil down to having "relationships" with things that don't actually, directly respond.
I. do. not. know. What part of "not a conscious decision" do you not grasp? I can only relate to you what I consciously see as flaws in it.
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?