Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Thank you for posting the documentary, i really enjoyed it.

You're welcome! Glad you watched it!!! Check out the first part of the series too if you want, it's called 'everything', should be on the right sidebar of the video.

What i get from the video is that electrons and anti electrons appear at the same time and make what 'appear' to be particles.

Well, no... not that they "appear to be" particles... they actually are physical real particles. It's just whatever properties of seemingly empty space requires the energy taken to be replaced. In some certain conditions however, these particles can actually stay in existence without returning to whatever state they were previously in.

The appearence and disappearence must be present (appearing) in something, the nothingness.
The nothingness out of which all appearences appear.

What the video was attempting to explain though, is that absolute nothingness can't exist in reality. For some unknown reason that we've yet to understand in our infancy, nature simply doesn't allow for nothing to exist.

The space however remains untouched by the appearences.
The space, nothingness, is awareness, consciousness. It is what makes it all known.

I fail to see where this conclusion is being drawn from.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

I really don't see the point trying to explain anything to a person who is a philosophical sceptic about how any of this has to do with God.
You might consider that nothing actually exists except in the mind, it sees electrons and anti electrons appearing and disappearing and makes stories out of appearances.
There is nothing solid here except your beliefs and even they are fragile.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I certainly believe in 'relative realities'. I very, very seldom (if ever) throw myself out of windows on the 10'th floor, because I know that the result only a is part-reality from the bird's eye perspective of philosophy.

Ivory-towers for navel-gazing, spades for digging.

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by randyvs

 

Well I guess you can say the same about Jesus. No one can hurt him anymore, he's also dead.

Wrong again ! You can say that all you want. Even though you have no evidence. I believe I've provided solid evidence that he is not.
No one seems to be dealing with that though. I wonder is that because they would have to debunk science at the same time.
I think science does that on it's own. By it's very premise of being the study of observable phenomena. I've never
seen Blackrain or Blackrains brain so by the rules of empirical science niether Black rain nor Blackrains brain
exist.
Yet they do, don't they? Science is flawed.
Also evidence of something is not evidence of something else.

reply to post by randyvs


You wrote:

["Wrong again ! You can say that all you want. Even though you have no evidence. I believe I've provided solid evidence that he is not."]

You have refused a joined 'reality-check' on genesis 1; ..... with the motivation, that such is not supposed to be done. The implications of my suggestion has a LOT of evidence-references in it. Which your refusal prevents me from presenting.

So maybe you mean something else, when you use the word 'evidence'. What you have presented on this thread has very little in common with evidence, as the word normally is used. Maybe you could clarify, what evidence means in YOUR defintion, so everybody knows, that you're not using the standard version.

Quote: ["No one seems to be dealing with that though. I wonder is that because they would have to debunk science at the same time."]

I am. Through all this thread I have constantly emphasized the importance of knowing about and using 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' positions correctly. You have yourself ignored this straight-to-topic rule, and switch position, when it fits your purposes.

Quote: ["I think science does that on it's own. By it's very premise of being the study of observable phenomena. I've never
seen Blackrain or Blackrains brain so by the rules of empirical science niether Black rain nor Blackrains brain exist."]

You're not talking about science. You're talking about, what YOU believe science to be.

Quote: ["Yet they do, don't they? Science is flawed."]

Is that how you produce 'evidence'? Repeating the same claim several times. You set out to discredit science in some context with theism. You're not one step closer to that now. You just keep saying: Is, is, is.

Quote: ["Also evidence of something is not evidence of something else."]

So outline the parameters/perimeter of the optional perspectives.

reply to post by bogomil


What is so agnostic gnostic about the shroud ? I guess I just fail to see the connection. Sorry. Science seems to be proving it is evidence of exactly what the Bible describes went on with Christ and from my point of view. You seem to be trying to deflect.



Do want me to provide the actual scriptures that describe the resurrection along side the video ? Is that necessary ? What?



First off. I think you should at least acknowledge that science is coming closer and closer to proving the resurrection. Much to your horror.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

What is so agnostic gnostic about the shroud ? I guess I just fail to see the connection. Sorry. Science seems to be proving it is evidence of exactly what the Bible describes went on with Christ and from my point of view. You seem to be trying to deflect.

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Do want me to provide the actual scriptures that describe the reserrection along side the video ? Is that necessary ? What?

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I am relating to the OP text and the following comments, as I've been doing all along this thread. I don't have technology for video-looking, and I usually don't put much trust in pro-theist 'experts'. They seldom turn out to be what they and their followers claim.

Scriptures is not evidence of anything except scriptures.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

What is so agnostic gnostic about the shroud ? I guess I just fail to see the connection. Sorry. Science seems to be proving it is evidence of exactly what the Bible describes went on with Christ and from my point of view. You seem to be trying to deflect.

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Do want me to provide the actual scriptures that describe the reserrection along side the video ? Is that necessary ? What?

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I am relating to the OP text and the following comments, as I've been doing all along this thread. I don't have technology for video-looking, and I usually don't put much trust in pro-theist 'experts'. They seldom turn out to be what they and their followers claim.

Scriptures is not evidence of anything except scriptures.

Then you have nothing to dicuss seeing that the text relates to the proof that SCIENCE has provided. That's what's wrong with this conversation. We simply shouldn't be having one because you can't see what it's about? WTF>

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Thank you Awake and aware for labelling me a 'pantheist'.
This is the label that makes you feel comfortable, it is a label that you have written out and put on a box and put me in. I don't mind it if you like labels.
However i do not label myself as anything, because i know i am not a 'thing'.

I don't particular like the "label" Atheist, i don't think it's nessasary, for the same reason i don't think not believing in unicorns requires a name.

Despite your lack of desire for the label, for the context of debate, that's what you've described yourself as.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I may regret agreeing with you but WTF I agree that what he has described is pantheism.

reply to post by randyvs


I guess there's a first for everything, Rando

Peace.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

What is so agnostic gnostic about the shroud ? I guess I just fail to see the connection. Sorry. Science seems to be proving it is evidence of exactly what the Bible describes went on with Christ and from my point of view. You seem to be trying to deflect.

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Do want me to provide the actual scriptures that describe the reserrection along side the video ? Is that necessary ? What?

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I am relating to the OP text and the following comments, as I've been doing all along this thread. I don't have technology for video-looking, and I usually don't put much trust in pro-theist 'experts'. They seldom turn out to be what they and their followers claim.

Scriptures is not evidence of anything except scriptures.

Then you have nothing to dicuss seeing that the text relates to the proof that SCIENCE has provided. That's what's wrong with this conversation. We simply shouldn't be having one because you can't see what it's about?

WTF>

So why the title "science fails to exclude god", if your purpose is to create a gnostic pro-theist argument? And why has it taken you 18 pages to arrive to the conclusion, that I'm not relating to topic. You start with imprecision and use this flexibility to avoid answering to anything getting too close to real evidence.

Had this thread clearly stated science's inability to exclude theism through the use of an inverted gnostic theist argument, I wouldn't have come here at all.

reply to post by randyvs

Yet they do, don't they? Science is flawed.

The above wasn't science at all, nor even a close approximation of how to properly apply the scientific method. Just wanted to point that out...

Also evidence of something is not evidence of something else.

Agreed. Evidence of belief in scriptural doctrine is not evidence that scriptural doctrine is true in the slightest.

I like this game.

reply to post by bogomil


Do you think it bothers me that your here ? You're the biggest reason this thread is 18 pgs. Once again WTF?>

reply to post by sirnex


Sirnex I must admit you crack me up sometimes. When you're not driven me right up a wall !

I was refering to the fact that just because they've dissected mammals and found that they have brains? That dosn't mean that you or I have one. But please enjoy the game.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Do you think it bothers me that your here ? You're the biggest reason this thread is 18 pgs. Once again WTF?>

You have formerly been very gracious and polite about my presence here. And being not only grumpy and querulous, but also stubborn, I often irritate people to stay on threads, which otherwise would die from being intellectual sawdust (I'm not saying this thread is sawdust; my complaint is, that it's confused, camuflaged preaching with half-scientific pretendings).

So if you can tolerate me, fine. You're at least good to banter with, and if you're as stubborn as me (hanging on), you'll eventually be cornered into a situation, where you have to acknowledge a real position instead of flitting around.

Greetings

B.

reply to post by bogomil


All right fine. I can see how you would wear out your welcome with most. If that makes you feel better in some
odd way? I hope that does it for you ? The video on the shroud shows how technology has advanced to the point that they can now show a 3-d image of the person that was wrapped in the burial cloth. Confirming that someone was wrapped in the cloth. Down to the pennies on the eyes. Also that the image is in no way a painting because a painting would not show a 3-d image. Also that the image was projected on to the cloth by a scorch of unknown origin. The flowers of Jeruselum are even now detected as well as writings around the head.

The burial cloth is even refered to in scripture. If there's anything I half to do more to back up this simple claim. That science is doing more to prove the Bible correct, than it is to disprove it. Then I'll have to bend over backwards and kiss my own ass I guess. Are you going to dispute that, as the topic at hand?
I hope I don't get some brainiac dissective response that is seemingly to much to deal with over such a simple premise as this and therefore to easily viewed as being completely deflective and then written off as defective and not worth the trouble as were most of your previous retorts. Quit worrying that you won't corner someone and speak plainly to the plain ass topic? If you can?

Look at this way I've avoided being cornered by you for 18 pgs by your own admission and I'm only getting better at it.

reply to post by bogomil


You wrote:

["All right fine. I can see how you would wear out your welcome with most. If that makes you feel better in some
odd way?"]

I can hardly imagine, that anyone would believe, that I'm on this forum as a part of a popularity contest.

Quote: ["The video on the shroud shows how technology has advanced to the point that they can now show a 3-d image of the person that was wrapped in the burial cloth. Confirming that someone was wrapped in the cloth."]

Not actually news, but that's not an issue.

Quote: ["The burial cloth is even refered to in scripture. If there's anything I half to do more to back up this simple claim."]

Not an issue either, I'll take your word for it.

Quote: [" That science is doing more to prove the Bible correct, than it is to disprove it."]

You forgot to mention, WHAT is proved and HOW it is proved. You just stated something is proved.

Quote: ["I hope I don't get some brainiac dissective response that is seemingly to much to deal with over such a simple premise as this and therefore to easily viewed as being completely deflective and then written off as defective and not worth the trouble as were most of your previous retorts."]

You mean, so as not to disturb your fragile chain of reasoning, I have to refrain from referring to REAL science and not use deductive logic.

Well, old habits die hard, I doubt, if I can give up almost 50 years of rational thinking to oblige your religious zeal.

Quote: ["If you can?"]

It would be easier, if I know, what it is you believe, you have proved.

Quote: ["Look at this way I've avoided being cornered by you for 18 pgs by your own admission and I'm only getting better at it."]

We're not finished yet.

reply to post by bogomil


Oh No ?

I have looked at the video that describes nothingness or a nothing (vacuum).

A vacuum is a negative energy force (gravity "G") compared to matter. The vacuum is the negative G.
Absolute vacuum is the absolute negative energy mass of possible G.

A vacuum is only looked upon as negative when compared to matter/particles. Like if you have a vacuum trapped in a tank. The vacuum is the negative g and the tank is the positive g.

In a unstable vacuum (which you always would have in a d- pressurized tank) you would have two different forces of negative energy mass G. You will have a strong G and a weak g. This means that the vacuum is still contaminated with particles with different energy charges.
You would probably also be able to measure electromagnetic because of different charged particles (electrons) still trapped in the vacuum, or that is radiated from the tank it self into the vacuum. Because you already have a strong G and a weak g present (The vacuum and the tank).

According to many experiments, no one actually measures the vibrations taking place on the tank isolating the vacuum. In a unstable vacuum the walls of the tank would vibrate because of the strong G and weak g present in the vacuum. Even if the vacuum was to be stable at some value, it wouldn't be stable at that value for very long.

You can see that they haven't taken the vibrations of the tank into their equations or the particles erected from the tank. There would be a storm of electrons given of from the tank, or even from out side the tank. The vibrations from the tank walls would also make changes to the values of the vacuum pressure.

That is also probably why they see these changes in strong and weak g. Like it pops out from nowhere.

When these scientists talk about matter and anti matter. Its just a strong G or a weak g they measure.

The strong G is the negative, and the weak g is the positive. They measure a contaminated vacuum.

If a scientist is going to prove that a isolated vacuum can produce particles or matter from nothing. They have to prove that the tank that is isolating the vacuum don't contaminate the vacuum ,and become the values that they measure.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

Oh No ?

Oh yes.

Remember that YOU are the missionary, trying to push your message to the man in the street. Unfortunately for you, the man in the street presently believes more in rational arguments than your vague repetitive claims.

As you see, I've turned up the volume again as a response to the level of your 'arguments'.