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.
Where did I imply otherwise?The subject of this thread is about the scientific view of the universe, not my view.
Where did I imply otherwise?The thread is about the scientific view of the universe, not my view.
Yes. Why do you ask?Did you even read the OP.
Well, I don't know that YOU aren't a computer simulation. I've checked myself for wires, so I know I'm not.that is not objective evidence that proves you're not just a computer simulation designed to exhibit human like behavior. I must "believe" (accept the truth) that you are conscious like I am. The only thing you can do to show me that you are conscious is exhibit similar behaviors that I can exhibit, it's then up to me to "believe" you are conscious. Consciousness cannot be proven, therefore requires belief. God cannot be proven, therefore requires belief. At least you can agree this makes sense.
Post #562
The actions of others does nothing to excuse yours.
However, I do not see how you can claim the straw-man argument complaint for gods. You would need to first objectively establish what/which god, and define in some testable manner its exact characteristics in order to show that the argument was wrong.
For example, if I say that the Christian God is only a character in a book, who here can demonstrate that I am wrong?
Tell me what Einstein thought of religious beliefs in personal gods.
I didn't. He offered.
I'm okay with you being hypocritical if you are.Oh for goodness sake....
Compared to the 'cry wolf' routine by the mainstream, you really have nothing to complain about IMO.
Let me know when you have a "perfectly good empirical definition" of the Christian "God" that everyone agrees upon.I already gave you a perfectly good empirical definition.
Do you even see yourself doing that? I'll just keep snipping them.Empiric<snip false dichotomy>
He wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."Apparently he didn't have a very "personal" relationship with Spinoza's concept of "God". His loss, but it hardly helps your case in terms of his openness to the basic concept.
No, it was your own misunderstanding, which you admitted to. Try for some intellectual integrity.I only offered to explain the various problems and assumptions involved with assigning an age to the universe. I didn't offer to stuff my beliefs down anyone's throat however. That was apparently your own strawman.
I'm okay with you being hypocritical if you are.
Let me know when you have a "perfectly good empirical definition" of the Christian "God" that everyone agrees upon.
Do you even see yourself doing that? I'll just keep snipping them.
I was referring to your predilection for the misrepresentation of others' positions.It's actually not hypocritical to pick on their claims.
If you cannot define it, and establish its characteristics, you have no basis cry 'straw-man'.Why? We don't even all agree about the character and nature of the current President, so why would we agree on the topic of 'God'? Your request is illogical.
On an unrelated subject - a dichotomy, and a false one.There was no false dichotomy in my response, just a few simply questions that you didn't answer.
You are welcome to take your notions to a scientific discussion site and plead your case there. Are there any that have not already banned you?You have your own *personal* set of *empirical* requirements as it relates to the topic of God, but as I've noted, that's not even an actual "scientific' standard, it's *your own personal* standard apparently.
He wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
Put that in your signature.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214
Add them all, including the ones I posted, or none. Cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest.I was thinking of adding this quote instead since it relates directly to our conversation about the universe:
Or maybe:
I was referring to your predilection for the misrepresentation of others' positions.
If you cannot define it,
and establish its characteristics,
you have no basis cry 'straw-man'.
You are welcome to take your notions to a scientific discussion site and plead your case there.
Are there any that have not already banned you?
Add them all, including the ones I posted, or none. Cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest.
Look for when I have commented on you post with this image.When did I do that in your opinion?
Try not to switch gods mid-conversation. Stay with the Christian "God" for a moment.I absolutely did physically define it for you, specifically as *everything*.
I already provided you with evidence of it's electrical characteristics, along with mass layouts that look *nearly identical* to current carrying intelligent structures inside of living organisms.
No, you said "We don't even all agree about the character and nature of the current President, so why would we agree on the topic of 'God'?".You're basically just handwaving at my definition without actually dealing with it. That's the big problem.
Then you should give them a try, and let me know how it goes.Been there, done that.
Oh I'm sure there are
So exactly *how* then did you decide that "space expansion" has anything to do with photon redshift again?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
Why would hydrogen or oxygen have a different spectrum elsewhere in the universe? These spectra are the product of the fundamental forces in physics. You would have to change the strong, weak, and electrical forces to get different spectra.
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr2/en/proj/advanced/galaxies/spectra.asp
We have seen the spectrum of many elements. Those are what we use to determine the wavelength of light when it left the stars.
Then why don't we see the same redshift in stars within our own galaxy?
Yes I expect you would, regardless of what the evidence showed. Seems little point bothering to even look at it.I have never seen the empirical evidence but I expect I would disagree with the conclusions.
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?