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.
Woa there, chief!Feel free to notify me when you are done preaching and want to discuss the question you raised in the OP.
If the Holy Spirit needs and /or uses you guys as his invitors, then...ah, forget it.Woa there, chief!
After the sermon comes the invitation.
You know ... to give you a chance to respond to the Holy Spirit's call.
Our level of quality bothers you, doesn't it?If the Holy Spirit needs and /or uses you guys as his invitors, then...ah, forget it.
Here you go:Sounds like you're having a wishful thinking. Can someone give us the link to the Steven's paper?
"You guys" meant to include you and the thread opener (i.e. the guys who started preaching at me in this thread upon my response to the thread question). Sorry for being unprecise.After all, does "you guys" include
Can´t speak for the other guys you have in mind, but I personally don´t believe that there´s a God, so N/N.After all, you guys have no problem with finding poor quality with God ... do you?
Someone witnessed a "supernatural infinite past"?
There is a scientific way to objectively determine the supernatural?.
Neat! How does it work?
I understand what your saying. Some time ago 3 physicist won the Nobel prize for their "proof" that the expansion of the universe was increasing over time. In 2016 ,with much more data to go on , the Oxford University Physics Department and Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen proved that wrong. Meaning there is now "proof" contradicting the "proof" that won 3 people the Nobel prize. Let me add this link if you want to read up on it.
Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
Furthermore I made a video not long ago claiming to have "proof" that a specific bible prophecy was in fact coming true and it even pertains to the expanding universe. Let me add a link to that video.
The Nobel prize people had faith that the proof was true but it turns out it wasn't. I personally have no faith in the proofs of evolution theory. The Holy Bible is proof for approximately 2.4 billion people worldwide. I posted a video stating there was proof that bible prophecy is coming true.
I don't know who your actually talking about stating that Christians don't have proof but that's wrong. The point being is that most if not all proof requires faith.
The pain and the suffering AFTER dying, in the resurrection to shame and judgment , for each one who does not repent ,
would take thousands of books(maybe more than that) to describe,
being millions of times worse(maybe more) than mankind's worse holocausts and tortures over the last 6000 years, .
So, not doing anything is (or seems) easy,
....... for now.
"woe to those who are at ease now", ...... YHWH'S WORD.
The "paper" proofs are essentially the finding the relationships between the Standards of Metrology. So, the proofs must correspond to Universe...... From several axioms others are developed. The proofs such as they are, are in people's heads, on computers and paper. Not in the universe. ......
...
There is always a scientific way to objectively determine something. There is not always an academic way to objectively determine something.
Science is pure; everyone practices science every day of their life. "Scientia" is Latin for knowledge, not truth.
I said exactly what I meant. If you are trying to make a point about something I said which you vehemently do not agree with, then why not just say that?
This is why I stopped conversing with other people, because after a while their responses are simply monstrosities of literary ridicule - not actual intellectual disagreement without vectors of incredulity expressed. It isnt a concession. And, I was being serious when I responded.
What's the difference?
Let's not get into silly semantics by attempting to use the word "science" as meaning something differently then the practice of scientific investigation.
You made points, I asked questions about that.
It's fine if you are unwilling to answer them - but then just say so.
I was being serious when I asked my questions.
If you don't know the difference between science and academia
, and you keep using "semantics" as an argumentative demerit, then we are done.
There is a difference between science and academia. It is not semantics; science is pure, while academia (the formal practice) is not. A scientist is anyone who works toward understanding and mastery of natural phemonena. An academic applies science to formalism in practice, logic and credulity. Science is to law, as lawyer is to academic.
Academia, not science, is responsible for the ethical, moral and humane application of scientific method. It is this application that qualitatively separates academia from science - mainly due to the obligations thereof. Academia fails often, while science just is. Academia is an institution of thought; it is not limited to science.
http://news.stanford.edu/2015/11/16/fraud-science-papers-111615
“Science fraud is of increasing concern in academia, and automatic tools for identifying fraud might be useful,” Hancock said. “But much more research is needed before considering this kind of approach. Obviously, there is a very high error rate that would need to be improved, but also science is based on trust, and introducing a ‘fraud detection’ tool into the publication process might undermine that trust.”
Academia’s seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud
British academia: BDS lies, intimidation and violence
"The problem lies with the closing of the academic mind in Britain linked to its rejection of Jewish thought and expression. When academic minds refuse to listen, the campus becomes a place of dogma. When it becomes a place of dogma it is no longer academia, a place of meeting of minds and open conversation. It is a harm inflicted upon itself, more than upon us."There is a clear difference between academia, and science - without the neophyte jump to call it a semantics argument.
Awesome.
Now back to the point at hand....
How does this distinction support the idea that supernatural events can be scientifically determined? You know, like you claimed in post 88 and which I questioned in post 131, after which you felt the need to start about "science" vs "academia", without actually answering my question?
You don't see any difference between academia and science, so I never tried to address it
When you try to turn on your TV, and you realize it doesn't work, you go through the scientific method - even testing over and over - until you realize the solution if there is one. It is the same way with "supernatural" phenomenon: the "supernatural" responds to stimuli, repetition, and patterns. You don't need academia to test supernature. Academia does not study the supernatural.
I am not putting up what I did to test, and then ascertain and remove the supernatural oppression (the claim that if I didn't do anything, and waited for academia to treat it as a real issue, then I would be seriously injured, or dead) because the practices used may violate the rules here.
And, I am not NOT answering your questions, you seem to be ignoring key implications critically enveloped in pith. That may be my fault, but I can't keep saying the same exact thing, whilst also following up with a complete analysis and description of every phrase I used, and why I used them. That is a distraction from the point - that science and academia are not the same entity, and you can test the supernatural with scientific means (especially understanding science =/= academia.)
Now that I have answered your question according to your needs (whether satisfactory or otherwise,) I am going to stop here. Cheers.
I didn't say that. I asked you about the difference because it wasn't clear to me why the distinction is relevant in context of you claiming that supernatural events can scientifically be determined. And I'm still waiting on you to clarify that claim.
How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?
How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?
You're the one that brought up the whole "science vs academia" in the first place - and it's still completely unclear why it is relevant in context of the point of discussion.
That point of discussion being:
How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?
No, you still haven't answered the question:
How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?
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?