How many GODS do you have?

[Absolute_Agent]

  30 billion dead would call you a liar if they could.

Please see below explanation:

The proposed outcome of the experiment is not that one will receive what one asks for every time, but evidence for the existence of God.  Every prayer will be answered, but not necessarily in the expected way.

Bullshit. I can fly and do it every day simply by wanting to. Top that liar.

Case in point: (see photo insert)

AITM definition: "Airbus Industries Test Method"

(Citation:

"AITM." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2019. Web. 30 Jul 2019. <https://www.abbreviations.com/term/1667968>.)




Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Arik]

Oh, please...

If you are unable to detect the difference between what religious leaders say; based on ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor evidence, etc, with the kinds of scientists say, based on verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence, for their theories, then that's a big problem.

We rely on what scientists say, because, guess what? They are using a method that is reliable. Demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic will beat whatever 'method' you or Arik are advocating, always.

Scientists do not speak in absolutes and certainty, unlike Catholic Priests. Scientists are capable of having their minds changed, if new evidence is presented, Catholic priests aren't. If you ever want to go hear some of the most humble people speak, go to a scientific conference. You will hear phrases like, "Others may know more than I do on this subject than I do", "These are our findings so far, if anyone has anything to add, please do", etc.

Ancient texts, 'feelings', flawed arguments, poor quality evidence, are not reliable. How could they be? They all lead to mutually exclusive beliefs. They lead Muslims to believe in Allah, Jews to believe in Yahweh, Christians to believe in Yeshua, Yogis to believe in NDE's, etc, etc.

The difference could not get any further. Just because you can't understand that others don't have a religious mindset like you have, doesn't mean we do have that mindset.

So, nice equivocation fallacy you have there.

What the priests and the ancient texts say is quite irrelevant to me as that is all about an external projection same same as what these scientists that you love so much say which is all about the fresh bread still hot from the oven.
There is nothing wrong with that but don't forget that tomorrow that bread will be cold and also will be more hard to chew.

That is the problem with a dimension that move and change all the time so what is good and verifiable today may well be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow that is why this bread is only good when is fresh.

On the other hand we are dealing with something that is always fresh such as the spiritual dimension.
In this dimension there is no beginning and no end.
The time does not exist but the peace of mind and total bliss is there 24/7 so to speak in a timeless dimension.

[Simon Moon]

You are projecting ... you are not a scientist, anymore than I am.  You have to trust some "expert".  Your ability to pick them is no better than mine.

Correct, I am not a scientists, but I do understand the scientific method.

Sorry, but if you are going to compare 'experts' (religious leaders) in gods, supernatural claims, miracles, etc, to experts in verifiable, testable, and falsifiable reality, then you have nothing to stand on.

Your 'experts' can't even demonstrate that what they are experts on, even exists. Scientists can demonstrate the things they are studying actually exist.

As an example, if a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian all measured the speed of light in a vacuum, they would all get the exact same answer. If they all appealed to experts in physics, all the experts in physics would give them the exact same answer. Not only will they all give the same answer, they will all list the various ways to test the speed of light. This is by definition, a reliable method.

Take the same Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian people and ask them to pray to their god, and ask for an answer to, lets say, what their god wants of them (or other theistic question), and you will most likely get drastically different answers from all of them. Not only will they give different answers, they can't even all agree on the 'method'. This is, by definition, an unreliable method.

So yes, if you are going to claim that your appeal to religious leaders as your choice in experts, is as good as mine, then you are just plain wrong. And provably so.

Science isn't independent of psychology or sociology.  This isn't about epistemology.  It is about gullibility.

Individual scientists are not independent of psychology or sociology, but the scientific method is. Unless you think those Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian scientists above, are all going to get Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian based results when they measure the speed of light?

[Hydra009]

Uniformitarianism was proven false a while ago, along with the theory of gravity.

This is no fun if you don't even pretend that you aren't a troll.

[Absolute_Agent]

Correct, I am not a scientists, but I do understand the scientific method.

Sorry, but if you are going to compare 'experts' (religious leaders) in gods, supernatural claims, miracles, etc, to experts in verifiable, testable, and falsifiable reality, then you have nothing to stand on.

Your 'experts' can't even demonstrate that what they are experts on, even exists. Scientists can demonstrate the things they are studying actually exist.

As an example, if a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian all measured the speed of light in a vacuum, they would all get the exact same answer. If they all appealed to experts in physics, all the experts in physics would give them the exact same answer. Not only will they all give the same answer, they will all list the various ways to test the speed of light. This is by definition, a reliable method.

Take the same Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian people and ask them to pray to their god, and ask for an answer to, lets say, what their god wants of them (or other theistic question), and you will most likely get drastically different answers from all of them. Not only will they give different answers, they can't even all agree on the 'method'. This is, by definition, an unreliable method.

So yes, if you are going to claim that your appeal to religious leaders as your choice in experts, is as good as mine, then you are just plain wrong. And probably so.


Individual scientists are not independent of psychology or sociology, but the scientific method is. Unless you think those Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian scientists above, are all going to get Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian based results when they measure the speed of light?

You don't understand as much as you imagine.  The speed of light has never been measured.  It is assumed to be constant based on theory and then used to determine the length of a metre: in other words it is the basis for the measure of distance itself.  Of course you will always get the same measurement, in theory at least. This observation is used in conjunction with the measure of time based on the rotation of the earth--assumed to be constant.  Mutually reinforcing assumptions in a grand parade of circular logic.  As long as everyone accepts these assertions, the apple cart goes it's merry way without being upset.  So the authority of determining measurements is relegated to a select few, usually institutions with a bunch of intimidating acronyms which everyone assumes in turn are undisputed.  Until they don't...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Hydra009]

Mutually reinforcing assumptions in a grand parade of circular logic.

Is that something you're in favor of or against?  You said earlier that you're religious, so I would assume that you'd approve of that sort of thing...

[Absolute_Agent]

This is no fun if you don't even pretend that you aren't a troll.

Why Hydra009... does a challenge to your assumptions make you uncomfortable? It's ok to admit if it does.  We've all been through this, at least the innovative ones that is.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

Is that something you're in favor of or against?  You said earlier that you're religious, so I would assume that you'd approve of that sort of thing...

It's an observation, not a judgement.  We can't escape ignorance--that's the pinnacle of knowledge that can be attained in life.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Simon Moon]

You don't understand as much as you imagine.  The speed of light has never been measured.  It is assumed to be constant based on theory and then used to determine the length of a metre: in other words it is the basis for the measure of distance itself.  Of course you will always get the same measurement, in theory at least. This observation is used in conjunction with the measure of time based on the rotation of the earth--assumed to be constant.  Mutually reinforcing assumptions in a grand parade of circular logic.  As long as everyone accepts these assertions, the apple cart goes it's merry way without being upset.  So the authority of determining measurements is relegated to a select few, usually institutions with a bunch of intimidating acronyms which everyone assumes in turn are undisputed.  Until they don't...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Seriously?

We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.

[Absolute_Agent]

Seriously?

We measured the speed of light in 1976 in an entry level electronic engineering course my first year of college, using a laser, a mirror, and an oscilloscope. We got within only a couple of percentage points of the most accurate measurements. And we only had about the mirror about 30 feet away.

Of course you did..  but you used a standard derived from light's speed, namely, distance.  So of course it appeared to confirm the hypothesis.  It wasn't an actual measurement, but a repetition of that derivation in reverse.  Light seems constant, like everything else--the Earth, the stars, America, your identity...  but in actually everything is fluctuating, vibrating, advancing & decaying.  The only real constant is change itself.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Hydra009]

Why Hydra009... does a challenge to your assumptions make you uncomfortable? It's ok to admit if it does.  We've all been through this, at least the innovative ones that is.

It's pretty rare and it tends to be closely associated with non-organized religion (one wonders why) but I actually have witnessed the ocassonal religious person who makes a strong effort to avoid unquestioned assumptions and conclusion-first thinking.  Usually I eventually see them here or a similar site, lol.

[Absolute_Agent]

It's pretty rare and it tends to be closely associated with non-organized religion (one wonders why) but I actually have witnessed the ocassonal religious person who makes a strong effort to avoid unquestioned assumptions and conclusion-first thinking.  Usually I eventually see them here or a similar site, lol.

Ok--so give me an example, I'm interested how that looks to you.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Or a demi god?
I don't really care that you don't accept it Baruch. I don't need you to. It does show the futility of arguing with you, though.

Arguing with a Belgian ... Today the EU, tomorrow the world?  (Sarc).

With me, conversion isn't on the agenda.  I don't think it is on yours either.

Yes, you don't care what I think.  But I do care about what you think.  Not that I want to change it.

Ok, what kind of nihilist are you?  I may have got lost in the cacophony ...

1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

2. extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

3. the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.

I assumed #2 ... in which case you shouldn't be posting.

#1 is common to posters here.  Particularly MikeCL.  Do you reject all moral principles, because life is meaningless?

#3 is common to the SJWs or New Left.  I see all three as different forms of anarchism.

[Hydra009]

Ok--so give me an example, I'm interested how that looks to you.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Examples of people's spiritual journeys?  Not the kind of thing I can sum up in a post and expect to do it justice.

Suffice it to say that the starting point was usually something non-mainstream (pantheism, paganism, deism, or some vague feeling of spirituality) and increasing exposure to both scientific skepticism and various secular perspectives tends to make an impression over time.  They may keep some sense of spirituality, but our views on organized religion steadily come into agreement.

Btw, they avoid you god bots like the plague, and I can figure out why.  Eventually, there might even be an "I used to be like that??!" reaction, which isn't really fair.  They usually weren't that bad off lol.

[Baruch]

@Absolute_Agent

People's spiritual history summarized:

1. Former Christian, now anti-Christian
2. Religious tourist, retired from spiritual tourism
3. Never been religious, even as a child
4. Jewish theist - but I don't count

There aren't many posting here, and only as drive-by, who would count as former Muslim, currently Hindu etc.