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.
From my (panentheistic) perspective, the whole universe is filled with physical evidence of his existence.
Citation needed.What most atheist "demand" is a lab demonstrated cause/effect relationship
So do "most" Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims. Funny how things which have evidence in their favor find universal support, while belief in gods seem to be more strongly correlated to where one was born.My purpose in discussing dark matter is that it's a "belief" which most atheists (not all), an scientists in general accept
Again, the OP is "what makes you or led you to believe that a god does not exist." I simply state that you can't prove a negative. All I am saying is that to accept the claim that there is a God requires evidence, which I have yet to see.And what happened before that...and before that...and before that? ...You can to a Christian forum...and have been demanding proof of God ever since.
So...you did come to a "Christian" forum, you are not talking to me now, and you don't want proof. Excellent.Yes, what?
Yes, I was invited and I came. Doesn´t mean I came "to you".
This is a flat out lie.
Not in this thread, it's off-topic.Shall we talk about theoretical aspects of particle physics? QM theory? Seen a graviton particle recently?
At least you admit your blindness. And I am not being unkind to say so...but as it has been said countless times, by the nature of the subject of God, it is not reasonable to expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity. That seems to be the stumbling block...and it is all just arguing and demands after that, because you do not understand the terms.Again, the OP is "what makes you or led you to believe that a god does not exist." I simply state that you can't prove a negative. All I am saying is that to accept the claim that there is a God requires evidence, which I have yet to see.
I'm here to enlighten you.At least you admit your blindness. And I am not being unkind to say so...but as it has been said countless times, by the nature of the subject of God, it is not reasonable to expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity. That seems to be the stumbling block...and it is all just arguing and demands after that, because you do not understand the terms.
But the point is - you came to us, you are here on a Christian forum. Why do you not concede to the terms, so we can move forward?
And yet the vast majority of people who believe in god for similar reasons strongly disagree with the god that evidence points to. Weird that so many people who think the evidence strongly points to a specific conclusion all disagree on what that conclusion is.
Citation needed.
Not in this thread, it's off-topic.
Since it seems you can't help seeing everything through the filter of your personal obsession with cosmology, and appear unable to directly address even the simplest proposition about something else (I even suggested a couple of possible responses), there seems little point continuing.
So do "most" Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims. Funny how things which have evidence in their favor find universal support, while belief in gods seem to be more strongly correlated to where one was born.
I came to a discussion forum, to be more precise to the part of the forum that isn´t reserved for Christians.So...you did come to a "Christian" forum,
I never said I didn´t. Are there no limits to your dishonesty?you are not talking to me now,
I never demanded proof (as you claimed).and you don't want proof.
So where´s your apology for your lies?Excellent.
My purpose in discussing dark matter is that it's a "belief" which most atheists (not all), an scientists in general accept, pretty much without question, even without a *shred* of empirical cause/effect support in the lab. When most (again, not all) atheists use the term "evidence" in relationship to God, they typically use a non-scientific, and/or a purely empirical cause/effect standard of evidence. The dark matter reference is simply to point out that "science' doesn't require such a thing, and that "faith" is actually an integral part of "science". That seems to not sit too well with most atheists. It tends to be a good starting point of a conversation in relationship to what counts as "evidence" in a "scientific" sense of the term.
No, it's not.
Every single piece of "evidence" that was ever presented to me, was something I was expected to "just believe".
That's not evidence. That's just piling on claims.
Give me something I can independently verify and which doesn't require me to believe the claims first, then we might be able to talk.
As it stands, I have never been presented with such.
If all you can do is go back to this obsession of yours in every single post, then please just let it go.
I have never spoken about lab experiments or cause/effect relations and I most certainly haven't spoken about theoretical physics or anything of the sort.
If you respond to MY posts, then please address MY posts. And not this hypothetical group of "them' atheists" you keep addressing - whomever they are.
Dark matter is really just a placeholder term describing whatever is the cause behind some observed phenomena, like galaxies that have more mass than they should based just on the amount of regularly matter that they contain.
Observations outside of the lab are an important part of science, too. Some areas of study, particularly astronomy, deal with things that are either incredibly difficult or outright impossible to bring into a controlled environment for study. That doesn't make them pseudoscience.
Any theory developed to explain an observation should make predictions that can be tested either in a lab, or by looking for them in the Universe at large.
Obviously controlled experiments to confirm these predictions are ideal, but again they're not always possible. A theory about what dark matter actually is (or, by contrast, a theory that some sort of unobserved matter is not needed to explain the results found) can be tested by looking to see if its predictions are actually true. You don't have to be able to create it in a lab to do that.
It's not really all that surprising when you stop and think about it.
Astronomers today do not understand 95 percent of the universe.
Not in my experience. But since we're just asserting things, suffice it to say that most times when theists talk about the reasons non-believers don't believe, they're just making stuff up.It wouldn't apply to every atheist even if I spent the time to round one up. Suffice to say that every time that an atheist claims that there is "no" evidence of God, they are either using a non-scientific definition of the term "evidence", or they're applying a purely empirical standard of evidence, or both.
No, not surprising at all to me given I think this stuff is all in believers' heads.
But it should be a bit more concerning to people who believe in gods.
Not in my experience. But since we're just asserting things, suffice it to say that most times when theists talk about the reasons non-believers don't believe, they're just making stuff up.
The fact that I didn't personally invent concepts like Pantheism and Panentheism demonstrates that it has been concerning to people who believe in God, including Einstein and Spinoza actually.
It's certainly a more 'scientific' definition of the term "God".
Considering the fact that the mainstream continues to be mystified by very ordinary electrical processes
The need for empirical cause/effect justification of God by some/most atheists is simply not a "scientific" standard of evidence.
But I thought you said you believed in a god which communicated with humans. If so, you're talking about something way different that the pantheism of Einstein and Spinoza.
Which kinda goes back to my point that while believers seem to agree certain things are evidence for their belief, that very good evidence seems to point to totally contradictory conclusions. If believers don't even know what they mean by god, how do the rest of us have any hope of learning?
What falsifiable predictions does it make?
Booorrrrinnngggg!
In what way?
My purpose in discussing dark matter is that it's a "belief" which most atheists (not all), an scientists in general accept
, pretty much without question
, even without a *shred* of empirical cause/effect support in the lab. When most (again, not all) atheists use the term "evidence" in relationship to God, they typically use a non-scientific, and/or a purely empirical cause/effect standard of evidence. The dark matter reference is simply to point out that "science' doesn't require such a thing, and that "faith" is actually an integral part of "science". That seems to not sit too well with most atheists. It tends to be a good starting point of a conversation in relationship to what counts as "evidence" in a "scientific" sense of the term.
Yet even by asking you to "just believe" in the concept of Panentheism, I'm not asking you to 'just believe' that there are exotic invisible (dark) forms of matter and energy that dominate the universe.
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?