If they are rare, and corrected, we have a pretty good discipline. Your feelings notwithstanding. I'm not sure what this means. If you think lies are the same thing as honest mistakes because both are wrong, go right ahead. Nobody will stop you. I can't translate this into coherent. If you are saying that untestable claims rest on some unspecified sort of "unevidenced evidence", what can I do but laugh? You don't seem to understand what a test is. All observations are models of lower-level observations. So we hypothesize a black hole. What properties must it have? Given those properties, what side-effects should we see? Do we see those side-effects? Yes, we do. Do we see them where our models say they should be found? Yes, we do. So there is an iterative process going on here: observe something, suggest an explanation. Based on that explanation, devise a test. If the test is successful, the explanation is supported. If the test fails, the explanation is wrong. And so on. You keep making this claim. Do you think if you make it enough times, it will come true? You don't seem to have the slightest clue how science works, so you project a religious model, where people START with foregone conclusions and try to make the evidence fit. But that's a purely religioius approach, and just the opposite of science. In science, any alternative proposal must not only fit the evidence available, it must fit BETTER than the proposal it's to replace. And "better" is something that must pass muster with the entire scientific community. I am not astonished that you are so hidebound in your convictions that you fail to even understand what I tell you. OK, name one and give me an example. I don't believe you. The scientific enterprise itself, considered all together, reduces that number to essentially zero. I will grant you that there ARE some Creationist "scientists" who work very hard to distort, cherry-pick, misrepresent, and otherwise force-fit the data to fit their religious preconceptions. But these people are not regarded as scientists in the world of actual science. It's exactly the reverse. No evidence means, no scientific proposals or hypotheses. What does not exist, can't be tested or explained. String theory is a mathematical model. It is NOT regarded as a scientific theory,and for exactly the reason you give - it can't be tested. No, this is simply false. OK, fair enough, I think it's a shame that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and construct your reality out of profound ignorance and wishful thinking. I know that you will never improve if you can't set aside what you WISH to be true, and focus on what is probably true. And that's sad.
I dont understand what you mean by the time comment. Time when used in cosmology or astronomy is represented by either an uppercase T or a lower case t. The reason for that is to show the difference between 'ST' and 'IT'. Figure it out, yes 'ST' is an abbreviation as is 'IT' but its Google-proof. So tell me Takioo what does the abbreviations abbreviate? You should know seeing as how you are debating a subject and are well versed enough to judge an cosmologist PhD 'dim'. reva
My God someone here debating this subject and is clueless as to what is a GUT and a TOE!!! I knew the posers would expose themselves sooner or later! Hint; one is the theory of everything, which is the holy grail of theoretical physics, and the other ( GUT ) is a Grand Unified Theory which is the holy grail of physics that would unite quantum mechanics and classical physics,...again ROLF! reva
I notice you skipped half of a short post, and then did not actually address what i said in the part you did quote. There are clocks to measure time, but nobody knows what time is. Your assertion about cosmologists was obvious nonsense, which is perhaps why you do not wish to own it here. A "cosmologist" who did not understand that the science is about the origin, structure and so forth of the universe must be a dim one, indeed. We somehow doubt that there are "many" such The use of acronyms is perfectly acceptable, as long as the first time you use it, you say what you mean by it. It shows ignorance and discourtesy not to do that. I can certainly judge your performance, you are not a PhD anything. You cant even spell.
First you say there isnt thenyou say there is. But you said this in the first place in a non response to my challenge to you to provide counter evidence to deep time or ToE. You cant, so you changed the subject. As for who is clueless, Flin detailed your shortcomings but you probably didnt understand what he said.
True, so the big question might be not if God exists but what are the true requirements for salvation? What laws must we obey? The 600+ Mosaic laws meant for the Jewish people before the time of Jesus, the ten commandants rendered from those over 600 laws, should we choose Baptist Lutheran or snake handling primitive Christianity etc? Or what if all of Judaism is wrong oh? Maybe we should choose witchcraft or Hinduism. Or why not choose atheism? I get it. I can only say that I chose my form of Christianity by giving other religions most of the major ones a test drive*. It took over ten years to try the religions. More like 20 years. I decided any God if it existed would give his creation the ability to choose the true religion. Also I went to six years worth of school to learn everything about my chosen religion. Even that was not enough So I read the bible and life manual in the end was how I hope to achieve salvation. In other words we all have free will to choose the true God and religion. My flavor of Christianity and who knows I may be going to hell if it exists (I don’t believe in a burning hell for humans, ie created beings) for not obeying some nuance in the bible some preachers think is necessary for salvation. I hope that helps and didn’t confuse the issue even more for you lol! * There were other reasons I chose Christianity, I had a profound NDE and other life experience and things convinced me of the bibles, and Christianity’s validity. reva
Not at all! Try to understand there is a difference between a theory for everything and a validated theory for everything. You said I should try to prove 'the' ToE wrong. (btw your use of upper and lower case letters was correct) . That meant you thought a valid ToE existed. I can make up a million theories of everything, but they wont be valid. Well one might want to hear superman’s ToE? God didit. There! However, I highly doubt my ToE will make me a Noble laureate, neither will headlines herald me as the new owner of Newton’s Chair (Stephen Hawking now chairs the chair, at least I think so. THERE IS NO TOE ! ANYONE CAN FABRICATE A THEORY OF EVERYTHING BUT A VALID TOE DOES NOT EXIST. WHAT WOULD BE THE USE TO COUNTER SOME NUTCASE TOE? OKKKKK? NOW, I ALSO SAID I HAVE NOT STUDIED DEEP TIME (I DOUBT IF YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS AS WELL) IN DETAIL SO UNLIKE YOU I WILL NOT COMMENT FROM IGORANCE....GET IT? No, Flinc only gave his opinion of my opinions, and everyone has an opinion just like we all possess a certain nether world body part. The reason I havent rebutted that post is that unlike your replies he actually says something. So UI am careful to respond correctly and that takes time. Sometimes it takes research etc. Lastly YOU are taking up my time by defending myself. Again if you did not know if a ToE exists (it’s as well known by even lay people with a passing interest in science that a ToE does not exist). That is nothing to be ashamed of UNLESS you are attempting to critique or debate a subject where you should know that! See what is happening (again) ? You have made every one of your replies a personal issue. This entire thread is a back and forth and morphing into a personal attack. Its the same thing every time I try to mend fences with you. In the future I will not answer personal comments. If you want to talk facts fine otherwise… stifle yourself, the forum does not benefit personal agendas or I should say in this case it seems to be a vendetta. reva
[ Wrong. Time is well understood. Now if you said 'no one understands why is there is an 'arrow of time' that would be a correct statement. [/QUOTE][/I] I already have owned it. Its mine ALL MINE! And I stand by my comments. AGAIN THERE IS NO SCIENTIST ON EARTH WHO KNOWS HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN. THERE ARE MANY THEORIES BUT NONE ARE WITHOUT SERIOUS ISSUES. SO YOU MUST THINK EVERY SCIENTIST ON EARTH IS DIM! THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT NO SCIENTIST KNOW THE ANSWER TO. SO ALL THOSE MUST BE DIM AS WELL! NOW DO YOU GET IT? I wasn’t critical of your grammar rather your seeming total lack of knowledge about what you try to debate, evidenced by your ignorant comments. It may show discourtesy but even for me, a open Christian its difficult to be nice when someone sticking a sharp stick in my eye (said in analogical fashion) trying to extract revenge because I exposed their ignorance of the subject at hand. Well with those comments about a ToE she did the exposing by her own hand. I would doubt you could judge anything about the topic. Btw, I did not claim to be a PhD, I do hold a masters degree. That is public record. As far as grammar goes you are far from learned in the use of English so try to get the log out of your eye before telling me to get the splinter from mine. reva
Man, your entire post is as the above...mostly wrong. String theory is INDEED A THEORY!!!!! it’s a SCIENTIFIC theory despite the math. A theory can be both a model and pure theory but I can think of NO CURRENT SCIENTIFIC MODELS WITH OUT A LOT OF MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS. I simply had to post this excerpt to keep me from talking to myself all morning (critiquing your off kilter statements)....I am late to my MMM (Mountain Manna Mission) DONATE TODAY! reva
There is no need or reason for biblical salvation...maybe personal salvation, if you're a bottom feeder. It's nothing more than a myth.
Well, I suppose it depends on the context, but in a general sense, time is not actually as well understood as you may think. In fact, there may not be an "arrow of time" at all, and the concepts of past, present, and future are existing all at once. What an odd straw man - he made a valid point. I know what the concept of the Grand Unified Theory is, but I didn't know what you were referring to by "GUT" at first either. Maybe it was the way the statement was worded, I don't know, but to attack someone for a lack of knowledge about a subject simply because you didn't define your acronym, is pretty silly.
Can you put this into the english language. Can't read this stuff. NEVER mind, I got rid of the silly font that no one can parse. This really didn't answer my question. You said all believe the same, except for small details. I was trying to point out they all agree on 1 thing, at least the 3 abrahamic, is God does exist. After that, no detail is the same. PS - You said your free will led you to where you are, did God know this is where you'd be at this point? If yes, how could any other option have been on the table for you. You were already destined to this point. You just didn't know it.
I was watching a film about WW2, and here were all these fine young Japanese and German men, utterly caught up in the delusion that their utterly irresponsible leaders had set before them. They may very well have thought that they freely entered into the cult.
Tell me what is delusional about making a choice to believe. I need to know the philosophical background on this. Is this a Determinism position?
I have gone over this before, but sure, I will try again. I in no way stated nor implied that "people dont make choices". There are, tho, some things that are not subject to conscious decision. I cannot choose to be hungry, nor to feel allegiance to the USA. I am, or I am not. I did not choose to start falling in love with my boyfriend. I chose to spend time with him, and make it possible for something real to happen. Over time, a person may be convinced of something, start to feel it, and then believe. Or maybe they see it; I didnt choose to believe in NYC, for example. I saw it! If I chose to believe in Batboy, it would be in the absence of any evidence whatever. That "choice" would be self deception. And, as i said earlier if you read it, it is also self indulgence. Doing what you happen to feel like, selfish emotion prevailing over reason, duty, data, or whatever is self indulgence. As surely you will agree. That is why i dont think a "choice to believe" is valid, or of any value. IF that is in fact what you did, rather than coming to your belief by some more intelligent means, then you I'd say have your faith built on vapour. i trust its better than that, and that you jsut did not think thru the thing about choosing.
This is why I recommend Ravi Zacharias to you. He understands your culture and philosophies of the East. He explains better than I how we should, logically and rationally, rely on existential evidence for God as well as natural evidence. Existential is in part feelings, I guess. There's nothing self indulging about that if it is in your heart to honor God. Taking up a cross means daily dying unto self. It rejects self indulgence. It's the opposite. It's self control.
Just once, I wish you would specify WHICH god(s) you're talking about. I'm sure you're aware that people believe today, and have believed in the past, in a very large number of gods. Their beliefs are and were as sincere as yours; they took their gods for granted as much as you do. Imaginary gods are certainly not required in order for you to be a moral and worthy person. Self-control doesn't mean control imposed by entities infecting your imagination.
I agree that behaving as a Christian -following the teachings of Jesus- would require a great deal of self discipline and heroism, self denial and all manner of virtue. Now, as for "existential" or other natural evidence for God, see, you are now talking about evidence. Rationality and logic. A side note... I wonder, if there is sufficient evidence for God, then of what use is faith? Do you have any thoughts about that? If you are shown thru logic and rationality, maybe some math, and then accept it as real and true, that is a lot different from me choosing to believe in Batboy! If you have been given enough evidence to be convinced that God is real, then it wasnt really a choice! Are you sure you actually chose to believe? Im thinking you did better than that. I saw NYC, and I could not choose to disbelieve it. I had a lot of evidence! it would be self deception if i managed some how to choose to think it isnt really there. Insanity, really. Do you see the point of what I am saying, that a nondelusional person cannot really choose to feel or believe, they need a material basis for it? oh, if your Ravi Z understood the cultural background of my life, he would not bother trying to show me his logic and evidence. just saying.
Don't underestimate him. Sufficient evidence to have faith! Not faith in lieu of evidence. I read kinda funny in that my eyes always dart across the words before I actually begin reading from left to right. It's weird. Anyway, when I see "batboy" or the like, I stop. So whatever it was you were trying to convey there will be lost on me. You need a material basis for making decisions, because you haven't been shown another way to reason through something such as believing in God. You're trying to apply natural law to the supernatural. Instead, I would start with the idea that because He is God, He is supernatural. His energy transcends all the energy and matter in the universe, so why bother trying to explain Him in that way?
The point of the fictional young man was that choosing to believe against all evidence is irrational. Hardly even sane. Self deceptive and self indulgent at best. You appear to have been saying that you believe in God for reason, not just out of arbitrary choice. If that is the case, then perhaps the discussion of "choosing to believe" is settled, and you do not in fact simply "Choose". I notice that you say you start with the idea of God, and certain characteristics thereof. I dont start with a conclusion. on another note.. Several of us have noted that you tend to respond very off topic, to where your reading comp. had been called into question. Between your not reading what others post, and your making things up,* I now see why. Unless there is more to it. *see in bold above
