The Age of the Universe

[Davian]

The only reason they can't demonstrated it (yet) is because it is an *experience of consciousness*.

That is what "imagination" is.

They can demonstrate that *other human beings* also have such experiences of consciousness.

No, talking about it is not demonstrating it.

How would you empirically measure 'love' or 'forgiveness'?

Not my problem. I am not asserting what I imagine as truth, or that this "truth" substantiates my opinion of how the universe was created, how to govern what you should (or shouldn't) have on your head, with whom you can have sex, the fabrics you can wear, the food you should not eat, or establishes the existence of a being that polices the thoughts in your head.

 

[Davian]

You mean like those 'dark matter' science guys that have a huge case of confirmation bias, and nothing tangible to show for *billions* of dollars worth of efforts in the lab?

No, I am not suggesting the creation of straw-man arguments.

 

[Davian]

The evidence of God's existence is love. <snip preaching>

Seeing as we are in a physical sciences forum, how would we test that?

 

[Michael]

No, I am not suggesting the creation of straw-man arguments.

What are you suggesting? Even 'scientists' tend to be guilty of cherry picking data and ignoring the data that doesn't jive with the consensus of the "control group'. Reality doesn't care about "control groups', and as SUSY theory demonstrates, "reality' isn't changed by the collective opinions of the "control group" either.

 

[Davian]

And when the sighted live happier and healthier lives? Then what?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ffers-buffer-against-strains-modern-life.html

What about it? People with security blankets feel a greater sense of security.

It must be the blankets! Get me some of those!

 

[Michael]

What about it? People with security blankets feel a greater sense of security.

It must be the blankets! Get me some of those!

I love how you just *ignore* the tangible benefits, and just "handwave" away at them. How cute.

 

[Davian]

What are you suggesting? Even 'scientists' tend to be guilty of cherry picking data and ignoring the data that doesn't jive with the consensus of the "control group'. Reality doesn't care about "control groups', and as SUSY theory demonstrates, "reality' isn't changed by the collective opinions of the "control group" either.

Science. You are doing it wrong.

 

[Michael]

Science. You are doing it wrong.

As it relates to electrical engineering, particle physics, quantum mechanics, GR theory (without the supernatural add-ons), evolutionary theory, biology, etc, I'm apparently doing it right because they all produce *empirical tangible results and products*. Only when we get to astronomy do you take exception to my use of a purely *empirical* method that *works perfectly in every other branch of science*. Why?

 

[Davian]

I love how you just *ignore* the tangible benefits, and just "handwave" away at them. How cute.

It makes me feel better to believe that the speed of light is 25% slower than scientists allege it to be.

Do you respect my belief? Can you not see the benefit that I get from it?

 

[Chriliman]

Seeing as we are in a physical sciences forum, how would we test that?

That's why God has Michael here

 

[Michael]

It makes me feel better to believe that the speed of light is 25% slower than scientists allege it to be.

Do you respect my belief? Can you not see the benefit that I get from it?

I see no obvious benefit that you might derive from being wrong with respect to empirically reproducible results from the lab, nor is it logical that being wrong makes you 'feel better'.

Likewise I see no obvious benefit from 'space expansion' proponents being completely incapable of demonstrating their claims about the cause of photon redshift in a lab, when there are already *multiple* empirical options which are reproducible in the lab right this minute.

 

[Davian]

As it relates to electrical engineering, particle physics, quantum mechanics, GR theory (without the supernatural add-ons), evolutionary theory, biology, etc, I'm apparently doing it right because they all produce *empirical tangible results and products*. Only when we get to astronomy do you take exception to my use of a purely *empirical* method that *works perfectly in every other branch of science*. Why?

Because of your continued reliance on straw-man arguments and false dichotomies.

 

[Davian]

That's why God has Michael here

rotflmao.

 

[Michael]

That's why God has Michael here

 

[Davian]

I see no obvious benefit that you might derive from being wrong with respect to empirically reproducible results from the lab, nor is it logical that being wrong makes you 'feel better'.

I believe I am right. If I get benefits from this belief, does it not in some way establish its veracity?

 

[Michael]

Because of your continued reliance on straw-man arguments and false dichotomies.

Baloney. Dark matter theory has been shown to be based on *multiple false assumptions* about the amount of baryonic matter present in galaxy collisions, and the mass/light ratios they used were *way off*. Every lab "experiment' they preformed came up empty. There's no false dichotomy involved. Those are simply the *facts*.

Even "dark energy' theory was based on a premise of a 'standard candle' and that entire premise has since been shown to be *false*.

I simply prefer empirical physics, and I don't have a strong confirmation bias like the mainstream.

 

[Chriliman]

rotflmao.

What you fail to realize is God has you here for purpose as well and that purpose is to get to the truth. Your constant denial causes us believers to really question our beliefs. Unfortunately for you, when a Christian really questions their beliefs, it only makes their faith stronger, simply because their faith is based in truth.

 

[Davian]

Baloney. Dark matter theory has been shown to be based on *multiple false assumptions* about the amount of baryonic matter present in galaxy collisions, and the mass/light ratios they used were *way off*. Every lab "experiment' they preformed came up empty. There's no false dichotomy involved. Those are simply the *facts*.

Even "dark energy' theory was based on a premise of a 'standard candle' and that entire premise has since been shown to be *false*.

I simply prefer empirical physics, and I don't have a strong confirmation bias like the mainstream.

That is the second-funniest thing I have read all day.

 

[Michael]

I believe I am right. If I get benefits from this belief, does it not in some way establish its veracity?

Can you actually measure the improvements to your health, and the decrease in the number of sick days that you take as a result of this "feeling' you get, or is this a hypothetical deal with no *actual* measurable benefits?

 

[Michael]

That is the second-funniest thing I have read all day.

It's so very entertaining and amusing watching atheists defend a bunch of supernatural nonsense.