31 Jan 06
Originally posted by dj2becker'tis a pity you can't read even one single two-letter word without acting like a buffoon.
Are you Bruno's ghost or Frogstomps ghost? Dude, I thought you were dead... 😞
Are you gonna share your NDE? 😵
If you have no clue what I'm talking about, check:http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37435
31 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by JadeMantis[/b]Admittedly how this reads depends on ones definition of God and Seed of God, but surely this is a flawed analogy.
[b]St. Gregory of Nyssa ...
God is all-in-all...
God who still today exists in humanity...
he is in us to day no less than he was then
Olivier Clement says: “Everything in effect exists in an immense movement of incarnation which tends toward Christ and is fulfilled in him;” and refers to “...the great synthesis, in Christ, of the human, the divin ...[text shortened]... n. This does not prove our concept of what the ocean is and how it works, but still there it IS.
Yep, I agree that it’s a flawed analogy, which is why I countered it (implicitly anyway) later.
Just to be clear, when I speak of a monistic understanding of the term “God,” I am describing my own understanding. I am not what some people call a “supernatural theist.” I was just interested in the question, going back to TCE’s second post and Hal’s response.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendIts easy, they don't accept it. Dark matter and dark energy for that matter are hypothetical. Its also verifiable, however the existence of God is not.
If science can accept the existence of something like dark matter, why can’t it accept the existence of God?
DF
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThat's my whole point, they are not verifiable, just as the skeptics claim God isn't verifiable. They are conclusions based on unexpected readings taken on things we can measure.
Its easy, they don't accept it. Dark matter and dark energy for that matter are hypothetical. Its also verifiable, however the existence of God is not.
Unless I'm missing something. How can they be verified?
DF
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendDF i've already responded to this in another thread. You also admitted that it was a good point. I hope to [insert mental idol here] that I posted my rebuttal after jan 28th, otherwise you've just dropped a lot in my integrity list.
How does science find something new?
As I understand it, the process goes something like this:
- scientists gather information about something
- they then examine the info to see what they can learn from it
- if the info suggests something they hadn't expected, they hypothesize about it
- they then go back and look for more info in hopes of pro ...[text shortened]... pt the existence of something like dark matter, why can’t it accept the existence of God?
DF
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendOh no. So disappointed. I see that you have posted this afterwards.
That's my whole point, they are not verifiable, just as the skeptics claim God isn't verifiable. They are conclusions based on unexpected readings taken on things we can measure.
Unless I'm missing something. How can they be verified?
DF
Even if Jesus is the Son of God, he does not need people making bad, dishonest arguments on his behalf. Try to be sincere, and if Jesus is real, he'll be there.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionI dropped on your integrity list because your description didn't drive the point all the way home for me? Come now. You don't truly think you're THAT good of a teacher, now do you? 😲
DF i've already responded to this in another thread. You also admitted that it was a good point. I hope to [insert mental idol here] that I posted my rebuttal after jan 28th, otherwise you've just dropped a lot in my integrity list.
You made a good point, yes. And it was that point that got me thinking further and inspired me to start this thread. The answers I got here completed my understanding of the process.
I'm sorry if you're disappointed in my learning curve.
DF
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendDark Matter is still a hypothesis. This means that it has been suggested as a possible explanation for the current observations. Whether dark matter does or does not exist is verifiable and will be verified one way or the other as more information becomes available. Being verifiable does not mean it has already been verified but only that it is theoretically possible to proove one way or the other.
That's my whole point, they are not verifiable, just as the skeptics claim God isn't verifiable. They are conclusions based on unexpected readings taken on things we can measure.
Unless I'm missing something. How can they be verified?
DF
The existance of God is I believe not verifiable. That is there is no possible experiment which could be set up to proove that he/she exists or does not exist. However specific beliefs such as a belief that God made the world less than 10,000 years ago can be shown to violate observation and scientifically is not "true". If it was done outside the "laws" of science then so be it. However it is a waste of time trying to proove something with science when that something does not follow the laws of science.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK, I understand that it is not possible to prove that some form of God does NOT exist (but is that not generally the case anyway - proving a negative?).
The existance of God is I believe not verifiable. That is there is no possible experiment which could be set up to proove that he/she exists or does not exist.
BUT, I have often heard it said that the existance of God is considered unverifiable. How come? What is the logic to this?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, in short, scientists have FAITH that it will be verified someday.
Dark Matter is still a hypothesis. This means that it has been suggested as a possible explanation for the current observations. Whether dark matter does or does not exist is verifiable and will be verified one way or the other as more information becomes available. Being verifiable does not mean it has already been verified but only that it is theoretica ...[text shortened]... ng to proove something with science when that something does not follow the laws of science.
Websters: 2b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
You see, the scientific types DO have faith, it's just in science instead of God.
The bottom line is that we all have and use faith. We all accept things to be true that we haven't proven ourselves. The difference is, a theist is willing to admit it, where the scientific types (at least I haven't met one yet) is unwilling.
DF
06 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendNot to worry. I've come to expect it from quite a few theists here. Rationalization and mental deconstruction are staples of the superstitious. It's just pathetic that you still claim that scientists put "faith" in dark matter. It's downright dishonest. You can start yet another thread and repeat your inane claim, but no matter how hard you try, your beliefs are not anywhere on par or similiar science. Sorry, just accept it. If Jesus was real, he'd know the difference.
I dropped on your integrity list because your description didn't drive the point all the way home for me? Come now. You don't truly think you're THAT good of a teacher, now do you? 😲
You made a good point, yes. And it was that point that got me thinking further and inspired me to start this thread. The answers I got here completed my understanding of the process.
I'm sorry if you're disappointed in my learning curve.
DF
You're still a much brighter pupil than ChessExpress, but he's not one to strive toward.
Edit: Ach, I just read your last post. Why do you embrace willful ignorance? Scientists do not put "faith" in dark matter in the way that xians put faith in Jesus. At best your playing on two senses of a word. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack and mischaracterize science? What does that gain your religion?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionThis is good. This addresses the point I'm trying to make.
Edit: Ach, I just read your last post. Why do you embrace willful ignorance? Scientists do not put "faith" in dark matter in the way that xians put faith in Jesus. At best your playing on two senses of a word. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack and mischaracterize science? What does that gain your religion?
Dark matter is an hypothesis, a guess scientists are hoping to prove or disprove. Whether they end up calling it dark matter or something else, the fact that there's something there they don't understand will cause them to persue it. In short, they accept that something exists there despite having no evidence of it. Isn't that faith?
My intent isn't to mischaracterize science. I think science and God go hand in hand. My problem is with those that use science AS a religion. I repeatedly hear things on this forum that are clearly faith statements and yet those making them refuse to admit their faith. When scientists accept that something exists without any evidence of it, by definition, it's faith. It's the act of accepting its existance that shows faith, not that dark matter is actually what is hypothesized to be today. It could end up being a large combo of things, we don't know. My point is that science finds new things through faith. I don't see why that isn't clear.
DF
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by DragonFriend
In short, they accept that something exists there despite having no evidence of it. Isn't that faith?
You are misconstruing the subject of dark matter. There is evidence for the existence of it, it is just that the theory cannot be said to be proven yet. To say that a belief in the existence of dark matter is based purely on faith is nonsensical. The absence of matter in the right amounts itself is evidence. Here is some info I quickly plucked from the internet which might help:
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html
My problem is with those that use science AS a religion. I repeatedly hear things on this forum that are clearly faith statements and yet those making them refuse to admit their faith. When scientists accept that something exists without any evidence of it, by definition, it's faith.
Scientists do not accept things in blind faith. They don't just pluck ideas out of thin air and go 'I'll test this crazy one today, see if we get anywhere'. They look at a problem or area of the natural world and test theories to try and reduce that theory into it's constituent parts. I should point out that, since there is no way of proving a positive assertion to 100% the process is instead done from a null hypothesis point of view. They take a null-hypothesis, such as 'Dark matter does not exist' and then test it time and time again, applying new theories to it in the hope of disproving it. If all attempts to disprove it fail, then the likelyhood of positive assertion grows stronger. This also means that in the future, if new technologies and theories come to light, the matter remains one of retesting the null-hypothesis. Scientists effectively do not say 'this is true' they say 'we consider this true since we cannot find anything to disprove it'.
07 Feb 06
It will take a human 30 billion lifetimes to meet and stand alongside the creator.but there is another way to fast track... in the common grave of mankind.So donot dwell on who created us! live your lives,cleanly,positively.hold out your hand when you can.love one another,but most of all...SMILE.