SHEEPEOPLE

[Dave Ellis]

Correction:

Finite knowledge is demonstrable in a finite setting, while infinite knowledge is not.

I'm not aware of anyone or anything that has infinite knowledge.

 

[marawuti]

Science deals exactly with religion
.
.
I'm just not sure they are willing to accept another consciousness (mind) besides their own.

I'm don't understand the definiteness of your first proclamation, maybe I simply don't understand it at all. Not contending with it. I'd just like to understand what you intended.

Yowza brother. Your final quandary sure resonates with my experience.

 

[HitchSlap]

Correction:

Finite knowledge is demonstrable in a finite setting, while infinite knowledge is not.

Some Christians also have trouble doing logic. I can't help you understand that which you are unable to comprehend.

 

[ScottA]

Can you provide me with someone who witnessed this spiritual realm first hand, and has testimony that can be verified? By that I mean, we can show their claims are correct, and not a product of their own imagination or whatnot.

No, you misunderstand. I am such a witness, but my testimony, like most similar testimonies, while they are no secret and public, was not verified publicly, but privately. There are however, written, historic testimonies that were verified publicly...they are recorded in the bible.

But what you are purposing is unreasonable. Even in a court of law, one cannot actually reconstruct what they have witnessed...just so you as the jury of their peers can have the same verification. Be reasonable.

 

[ScottA]

Some Christians also have trouble doing logic. I can't help you understand that which you are unable to comprehend.

Logic, is determining that even though the subject cannot be seen with the naked eye, many can attest to it, so, there surely must be some truth to it (which is not delusion).

But science is no different. You can scribble a bunch of figures out on a chalkboard or zing away with expert skill on a calculator, or mix up some concoctions that are over the head of those you hope to share your findings with...and what? They're just supposed to believe it?

Science's info is over our heads, but for the most part, we believe it. But Christian's info is over science's head, but for the most part, science doesn't believe. There is your demonstration. The problem here is, science can dish it out, but they can't take. That is known as childish behavior...but I mean that in a good way ...unless you come as a little child, you shall not enter in.

 

[ScottA]

I'm not aware of anyone or anything that has infinite knowledge.

Hello, my name is Scott. I am just one of many who have access to infinite knowledge. We have personally been contacted by the Creator of the universe, the creator of space, time, and matter. You are not going to believe it...but the universe is like a spec of sand on the beach of a greater reality. The good news is, the universe was created to tell us all about that greater reality. My advice? Forget about facts. They were all contrived. Instead, learn to read between the lines. And if you have questions, ask...and be patient. The world wasn't made in a day.

 

[HitchSlap]

Logic, is determining that even though the subject cannot be seen with the naked eye, many can attest to it, so, there surely must be some truth to it (which is not delusion).

But science is no different. You can scribble a bunch of figures out on a chalkboard or zing away with expert skill on a calculator, or mix up some concoctions that are over the head of those you hope to share your findings with...and what? They're just supposed to believe it?

Science's info is over our heads, but for the most part, we believe it. But Christian's info is over science's head, but for the most part, science doesn't believe. There is your demonstration. The problem here is, science can dish it out, but they can't take. That is known as childish behavior...but I mean that in a good way ...unless you come as a little child, you shall not enter in.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." CH

That you have not taken the time to verify your lack of scientific comprehension is on you. That you expect others to also display an incredulous level of credulity is also on you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which "scientist"?

Every single one of them - since every theory we have breaks down at that beginning and utterly fails. Declaring the miracle better than I ever could.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In order for this to be comparable, the New World would need to be invisible and completely undetectable just as God appears to be.


Anyone can tell a story.

Sort of like energy, which we know is there throughout all of space (vacuum energy) but can only detect it by the effect it has on particles?

Just as Dark Matter where it has never been detected, but they still choose to believe in this invisible stuff? Dark Energy, need I say more?

But God told you He was invisible and unseen - like your consciousness - but that you were to study the things made so you could discern that invisible power of which He is.

95% of cosmology is made up of invisible things never once observed. So it is not really invisible things you have never seen that you are really objecting to, is it.

Anyone can tell a story, like that priest that told you a story of the Big Bang, in which science has usurped even the proper credit due.

 

[HitchSlap]

Every single one of them - since every theory we have breaks down at that beginning and utterly fails. Declaring the miracle better than I ever could.

I see.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We can test that interpretation against the independent evidence. It doesn't have to be taken on faith.



How do you determine that a conclusion is wrong? By comparing it to the facts?

So if I told you birds on islands were separate species - then when they were studied we find they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, do I continue to ignore those facts or just admit what I once believed was wrong?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see.

No, I don't think you do to be honest.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, I don't think you do to be honest.

I see things for what they are, not as you'd like them to be.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can people sincerely believe something that isn't true?

Why don't you ask every scientist that once believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe - and had math and everything to back up those claimed facts? I'm sure they were quite sincere in their belief, even if they were wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debate_(astronomy)

The difference being that you shouldn't have to rely on belief. If something exists, then you should be able to demonstrate that it exists.

Demonstrate Dark Matter exists? Black Holes? Neutron stars?

We can demonstrate that music exists outside of the mind of the person making the claim. Poor analogy.

Then why the big ongoing debate of if a tree falls in the forest? Science now claims that what we perceive as reality is merely a persistent illusion. Some branches of science claim a cat in a box is neither alive nor dead until the act of perception occurs. I'm sure those that follow quantum theory might not agree with you.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins100298.html

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see things for what they are, not as you'd like them to be.

No, you see them as you want them to be - not as they really are. Do we need to talk about finches again?

 

[Smidlee]

...And sometimes in museums.

Art is a product of a mind that can only exist by another mind. It's a mind to mind thing as the paper and paint itself can't explain the art.

After man went into space? We figured out the earth went around the sun centuries before that. Copernicus figured that out in the 16th century, and it was championed and popularized later by Galileo, until he was silenced by the Catholic Church for his "heretical views".

Galileo idea went against the science of his day as he couldn't prove he was right. It's the fact the math and models were easier was the reason his idea took off. It's a myth that is was "Science vs religion" it was "one scientific view vs another".

A TED talk a few years back referred to this example as why scientist doesn't follow the scientific method like we are taught in schools.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Art is a product of a mind that can only exist by another mind. It's a mind to mind thing as the paper and paint itself
Galileo idea went against the science of his day as he couldn't prove he was right. It's the fact the math and models were easier was the reason his idea took off. It's a myth that is was "Science vs religion" it was "one scientific view vs another"

Yes, they like to forget that. Even though epicycles was not started by the church.

Just as they like to forget that it was a priest that gave them the Big Bang and every modern cosmological theory of the universe they still hold to.

 

[ScottA]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." CH

That you have not taken the time to verify your lack of scientific comprehension is on you. That you expect others to also display an incredulous level of credulity is also on you.

However eloquent, that is simply a way of retreating to known terms. I do understand your resistance, but it doesn't gain anything. That line of reasoning speaks to the scientific side of the equation, but NOT to the spiritual side...and that is the problem. The same old tools and logic, do not apply. There are always new horizons...since when is retreating the correct course to take?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." CH

That you have not taken the time to verify your lack of scientific comprehension is on you. That you expect others to also display an incredulous level of credulity is also on you.

So we can dismiss Dark Matter, since every experiment has failed, along with the theory that devised it?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

But you are not seeking new ideas, are you, but reiterating the same old Fairie Dust.

 

[Michael]

I see things for what they are, not as you'd like them to be.

Meh. I think we all wear our own unique shade of rose colored glasses.