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.
And you have no evidence that he did not exist.
Well, well well. I would love to see the evidence that debunks the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago.
I would love to see the evidence that debunks life beginning with one man and one woman.
I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.
I would love to see the evidence that debunks the claim that life is not a product of evolution.
I am confident that this criterion for assessing a model of reality is of limited use. When I see the sky, I have an inner visual sensation of "blueness". I then measure the wavelength of the light and propose the following prediction as an element of my model of reality: "Whenever light of such a frequency impinges on the retina of a human being, they will have a subjective experience of blueness just as I have".If the model makes no testable prediction that could possibly show that the model is false, the model is abandoned because it is useless.
I believe it's a meaningless prediction. Whether your subjective experience of blue is the same as mine is both meaningless and unimportant, and this is not in any significant way a part of the model of visible light.Can you tell me how this prediction would be falsified?
Do you believe this is a correct "prediction".
Not al all. The school district has said both are to be taught and the kids are allowed to make their own minds up as to what is true.
The consciousness is in the Designer, not the machine. The forces that make atoms work are above the knowledge of science. Science merely notes how things work and tries to slap a word for the forces in action in their little weak limited way.See, I find this comparison interesting, because I'm curious as to what role "god" would play in this model. In the current model of the atom, electrons explain the detected charges and serve a useful, specific role in the model. We don't also assume they are conscious, or equally responsible for making sure good children have good dreams; we attribute a specific interaction to them and try to simplify as much as possible while still accounting for the evidence.
Don't be silly dad, everybody dies.
All creation and life with Him in us is proof. Some just don't see it because they chose darkness.You have no valid evidence that he existed, let alone been executed. And no evidence at all that he defied the laws of nature by resurrecting. All you have is blind faith.
False. Claiming life on earth started with some gook from a comet fly by or whatever crusty nonsense science conjures up is talking about creation.Science does not discuss creation - people do -
That would be a hypocritical position to adopt.since it is not a topic for science but region. The only one that believes creationism has a ligimit place in science is creationists themselves
Science is a religious agenda of hell when it comes to origins. Children are targeted. It is war of the spirit for the souls of the little ones.- and it is not because they think it is science, or even care about science, but it is used as tool to put their religious agenda onto everyone - in particular children that does not have the knowledge to judge for themselves yet. I say this as a first hand observation of what creationists themselves have written on their own propaganda website.
That has zero to do with origins or creation. Strawman.About the "limitations"of science. It is thanks to science you got electricity..
I understand why you might think somethings not "cool," but with seven billion people on the planet, I can't worry about what each of them thinks. You might do a little introspection and try to evaluate what about Jesus' death bothers you.
Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word with me. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blasphemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...
It actually is not cool to make light of the death of Jesus.
This is why I think your position is untenable. One of the things that gives life meaning - perhaps the most important thing - is the ensemble of sensations (including emotions) that are, by their very nature - not amenable to verification by the criteria you propose. Yet, I submit they are clearly part of reality! How can this possibly be denied? I suggest the reality is that the world we live in has aspects that are clearly "real" (and important) and yet are not subject to third-party objective verification. I confess I am mystified that one would characterize those aspects as "meaningless" if, in fact, this is what you are doing.I believe it's a meaningless prediction. Whether your subjective experience of blue is the same as mine is both meaningless and unimportant, and this is not in any significant way a part of the model of visible light.
Straw man fallacy.This is why I think your position is untenable. One of the things that gives life meaning - perhaps the most important thing - is the ensemble of sensations (including emotions) that are, by their very nature - not amenable to verification by the criteria you propose. Yet, I submit they are clearly part of reality! How can this possibly be denied? I suggest the reality is that the world we live in has aspects that are clearly "real" (and important) and yet are not subject to third-party objective verification. I confess I am mystified that one would characterize those aspects as "meaningless" if, in fact, this is what you are doing.
However, perhaps we are talking about different things. You seem to think that a model of light is what is at stake. That is not what I am saying - instead, I am talking about a comprehensive model of reality that incorporates such necessarily subjective, and therefore non-falsifiable, aspects of reality as the inner world of conscious experience. I know I have such an inner world but I have to assume that you have it as well precisely because nature will not "let" me test whether you have it.
Are you suggesting the inner world of experience is not "real" simply because it is not subject to third-party falsification?
I am confident that this criterion for assessing a model of reality is of limited use.
When I see the sky, I have an inner visual sensation of "blueness". I then measure the wavelength of the light and propose the following prediction as an element of my model of reality: "Whenever light of such a frequency impinges on the retina of a human being, they will have a subjective experience of blueness just as I have".
Can you tell me how this prediction would be falsified?
How?Straw man fallacy.
I am perfectly aware, for example, that neuroscientists have made great advances in identifying the neural correlates of subjective experience, as the latter are verbally reported. Is this what you are talking about when you use the term 'document' in your post?What makes you think neuroscientists are unable to document "subjective" experiences? Were you not aware of this?
No thanks. Speaking of not worrying what others think....You can cork it on matters of faith in God.I understand why you might think somethings not "cool," but with seven billion people on the planet, I can't worry about what each of them thinks. You might do a little introspection and try to evaluate what about Jesus' death bothers you.
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?