The power of God.

[iNow]

Please all of you - Have respect for the beliefs of other.

Here we go again... It's a bit sad that I have to recycle this point so many times.

 

No, we should NOT respect everyone's beliefs. I don't respect people who believe that having sex with animals is okay. I don't respect people who believe that all women want to be raped. I don't respect people who believe that people with darker skin are inferior, and I don't respect people who believe that putting cats into microwaves is a fun way to spend a Saturday.

 

I don't have to respect your beliefs. If you believed that murdering infants would end global warming, must I respect that? If you believed that raping 12 year old boys would end poverty, must I respect that? If you believed that burning puppies alive would result in world peace, must I respect that?

 

No. We shouldn't respect other peoples beliefs, especially when they're ridiculous (like belief in god, or those just mentioned above).

 

What I do respect is your RIGHT to believe whatever you want. That is fine. That is your freedom. That is your choice. Your beliefs belong to you, and I respect that, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves. Do you agree with this, or do you think I am mistaken? Should I respect the beliefs of a person who thinks that pouring acid on a young girls face is the correct path to purity and piety? I suspect you understand what I'm getting at here, and I hope you realize that the same approach applies to people's beliefs in deities.

 

The beliefs themselves are often quite silly and deserving of no respect whatsoever. I will defend to my death your freedom to believe whatever you want, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves... and let's state the obvious here... I DON'T respect beliefs about a magic sky dictator who says we're born evil and must worship him like a bully would... beliefs which are held purely based on fantasy and no evidence whatsoever.

 

No, when people hold those beliefs, I don't respect those beliefs, nor do I respect the other beliefs I listed above.

 

Respect is earned, not entitled.

[Dovada]

Dovoda, until you actually demonstrate your "reveled knowledge" it is irrelevant, your belief it is true is irrelevant, as is any appeal to authority such as Einstein and his views or lack there of for religion. If I only had a dollar for every time someone has claimed to know something but he can't demonstrate it because it's too complex to show or to understand or it will be ready next Tuesday...

 

Evidence talks, horse feathers walk dude...

I have started to release a book on amazon kindle called "The Living Cosmos The Search For Universal Energy" which is a first release at this time. This book is available free to the Kindle Owners' Lending Library using KDP Select.

 

To release the information on this forum is not possible because it has already been blocked by the moderators using the phrase "Do not bring the subject up again".

[John Cuthber]

Then you don't want to except forgiveness? You want to pay for your debts?

 

 

 

It is fair. You sin, you deserve bad things. He is not fair. He forgives a Christian's sin. Not yours.

 

 

 

Okay, why don't you write a short paragraph about yourself as the world's creator. What can you do? What can't you do? Include a few more important facts about how you created the world.

 

I'll show you why it won't work.

 

 

 

That's not the same. Wait for that paragraph.

 

 

Still waiting

[Tres Juicy]

I am not preaching to you, I have not delivered a sermon. I have stated a personal experience.

How can you say I have no "predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence, that you have knowledge given to you by God". This is just your stating your opinion as fact.

 

 

Feel free to show predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence at any time

[immortal]

No, I am not purposely misrepresenting it at all.

 

It was explained to me:

1: Why virtually all atomic structure was electrically neutral.

 

There is nothing special about it, science has already explained why atoms have a net neutral charge.

 

2: Why all atomic particles everywhere had almost identical characteristics.

 

Again quantum mechanics and quantum states perfectly explain why atoms of an element have identical properties.

 

3: What a gravitation field is and why we cannot detect its electromagnetic properties.

 

The equations of general relativity predict that a gravitonal field should exist which is carried by gravitons and experiments have been conducted to detect those particles and if we can't detect then we need to fix something in our scientific models, you need to explain why those scientific models will not be fixed without invoking God into it.

 

4: How gravity drives the cosmos.

 

The equations of general relativity shows how matter curves space and time and how space and time drives matter and the it has been tested to precision upto decimal places. So what special about that.

 

5: That the gravitational field is related to the Holy Spirit.

 

Define Holy spirit?

 

Why the hell the holy spirit or the Bible have to be consistent with the scientific models, bible doesn't claim to fill the gaps in the scientific models, Bible claims to describe the supernatural realm, it stands on its own.

 

To me this information is factual.

 

It is not factual untill it is tested.

 

Where have I been given the chance to show it? So how can you say "None of those things turned out to be valid".

 

Its an honor to see your validation, please kindly provide it.

 

Are you saying here, that people who have studied accepted science all their lives, have it all worked out as factually correct.

 

Those people put their belief systems to test and that's how factual statements and real knowledge are accumulated.

 

You all respect Einstein. Did he not believe in God when he said:

 

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

and

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

and

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

and

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

 

Please all of you - Have respect for the beliefs of others.

 

Perhaps you didn't understand his latter statement. "Religion without science is blind" - We should respect only those beliefs which has been tested and found to be real. You cannot request respect for your belief from others before putting your belief systems to test. Einstein never requested others to respect his beliefs. That's the difference between you and Einstein and the reason why we see him with high respect.

[Dovada]

There is nothing special about it, science has already explained why atoms have a net neutral charge.

But not why the proton and electron don't fuse together because of electromagnetic radiation lost when the electron orbits the proton nucleus.

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable. Why does the neutron decay outside of the nucleus?

 

Again quantum mechanics and quantum states perfectly explain why atoms of an element have identical properties.

Was quantum mechanics initially developed to try to explain why the proton and electron don't fuse together because of electromagnetic radiation lost when the electron orbits the proton nucleus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

 

 

The equations of general relativity predict that a gravitonal field should exist which is carried by gravitons and experiments have been conducted to detect those particles and if we can't detect then we need to fix something in our scientific models, you need to explain why those scientific models will not be fixed without invoking God into it.

The graviton is a mythical particle and has not been proved to exist, just as God has not been proved to exist yet.

 

The equations of general relativity shows how matter curves space and time and how space and time drives matter and the it has been tested to precision upto decimal places. So what special about that.

General relativity is a mathematical theory to try to replace the gravitational effect. I cannot understand how it explains the motion of galaxies.

 

Define Holy spirit?

Moving cosmic electromagnetic energy. The energy that drives the cosmos accelerating galaxies at colossal speeds.

 

Why the hell the holy spirit or the Bible have to be consistent with the scientific models, bible doesn't claim to fill the gaps in the scientific models, Bible claims to describe the supernatural realm, it stands on its own.

The bible is trying to explain to all of us how the cosmos works. Is this the same as what science is attempting to do?

 

It is not factual untill it is tested.

To me this information is factual. I have made some of the information publically available to others, as I said before.

 

Its an honor to see your validation, please kindly provide it.

Where have I been given the chance to show it on this Forum?

 

Those people put their belief systems to test and that's how factual statements and real knowledge are accumulated.

So have I, have patience. At this time I believe you do not have the qualifications to test this knowledge. This belief is based on the answers you have supplied here, that I have had to re-answer.

 

 

Perhaps you didn't understand his latter statement. "Religion without science is blind" - We should respect only those beliefs which has been tested and found to be real. You cannot request respect for your belief from others before putting your belief systems to test. Einstein never requested others to respect his beliefs. That's the difference between you and Einstein and the reason why we see him with high respect.

Really? Can you say for certainty that Einstein was not inspired by God?

Edited February 10, 2012 by Dovada

[Tres Juicy]

 

The graviton is a mythical particle and has not been proved to exist, just as God has not been proved to exist yet.

 

And yet tthegraviton is testable and falsifyable and therefore science - god is not.

 

General relativity is a mathematical theory to try to replace the gravitational effect. I cannot understand how it explains the motion of galaxies.

 

Perhaps further study is in order?

 

The bible is trying to explain to all of us how the cosmos works. Is this the same as what science is attempting to do?

 

No it's clearly not. "god did it" it not an explanation

 

 

To me this information is factual. I have made some of the information publically available to others, as I said before.

 

As I said before, for something to be factual it needs to be factual to everybody - You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts

 

Where have I been given the chance to show it on this Forum?

 

You can do so now if you like

 

So have I, have patience. At this time I believe you do not have the qualifications to test this knowledge.

 

I don't think you are qualified to make that judgement. Why don't you try us?

 

Really? Can you say for certainty that Einstein was not inspired by God?

 

 

Whatever inspired Einstein, he still worked scientifically and searched for the real truth behind things instead of attributing things to "gods will" or some such cop out

[immortal]

But not why the proton and electron don't fuse together because of electromagnetic radiation lost when the electron orbits the proton nucleus.

 

The coulomb potential confines the electrons into a set of allowed possible energy levels and the electrons won't orbit around the nucleus instead they form a negative cloud around the nuclues which may have spehrical or non-spherical shapes. Its a direct consequence of the nucleus system or the quantum system, so what is special about that.

 

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable. Why does the neutron decay outside of the nucleus?

 

Free neutrons are vulnerable to weak interaction. a force carried by its bosons respectively and therefore it decay into other low stable quarks. So what is the special knowledge you have that science doesn't have.

 

Was quantum mechanics initially developed to try to explain why the proton and electron don't fuse together because of electromagnetic radiation lost when the electron orbits the proton nucleus. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bohr_model

 

What do you mean? Do you think scientists made it up so that it accounts for the limitations of the classical view of the Bohr atom model. The calculations of the quantum wavefunction are in agreement with the energy levels in atoms and their spectrums.

 

Moving cosmic electromagnetic energy. The energy that drives the cosmos accelerating galaxies at colossal speeds.

 

Holy spirit? Dark energy? I expected a more intelligent answer considering that we thought you were an enlightened man.

 

The bible is trying to explain to all of us how the cosmos works. Is this the same as what science is attempting to do?

 

The question is why is that the explanation of the Bible have to be consistent with the explanation given by science? If that is the main goal of Bible then that must be the will of God. So why does God wants to reveal himself through the Bible, he could have easily revealed himself while science is attempting to explain the cosmos.

 

So have I, have patience. At this time I believe you do not have the qualifications to test this knowledge. This belief is based on the answers you have supplied here, that I have had to re-answer.

 

So what I need to do to get qualified to have this new knowledge.

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

No, I am not purposely misrepresenting it at all.

 

It was explained to me:

1: Why virtually all atomic structure was electrically neutral.

2: Why all atomic particles everywhere had almost identical characteristics.

3: What a gravitation field is and why we cannot detect its electromagnetic properties.

4: How gravity drives the cosmos.

5: That the gravitational field is related to the Holy Spirit.

 

To me this information is factual.

I'm appalled that you could even begin to think that people should take your information as fact just because you do. This seems to suggest that you've misunderstood how scientific method works and don't appreciate the power it has to sift through bias and beliefs and get to actual supportive evidence for rational conclusions.

 

 

Where have I been given the chance to show it? So how can you say "None of those things turned out to be valid".

Shall I link to your speculative threads where you were asked multiple times in each to provide supportive evidence? This will clearly show how you ignored requests and simply kept trying to restate your arguments with no maths, no predictions and no reason why your theses provided a better explanation than currently accepted theory.

 

 

Are you saying here, that people who have studied accepted science all their lives, have it all worked out as factually correct.

Again, your understanding of science seems partial. "Accepted science" isn't about factual correctness. That's why they're called theories rather than laws or facts. They represent the best explanation of various phenomena, not an etched-in-stone, unchanging concept.

 

But make no mistake, these theories can be overturned but only by a better explanation, and that's something you've been asked to show a myriad of times and never, never have.

 

The reason for the existence of the energy structure relating to and the cause of gravitation is at present unknown to scientists so what right have they to judge me because the underlying structure of this energy has been revealed to me.

Mainly because your writings fail to explain your revelations in a manner that the scientific methodology can accept.

 

Not only has it been revealed to me, I have checked the information against accepted scientific theories that verify that the concepts given to me are valid. This has take some considerable time to do (several years) and is still ongoing.

But if they don't work better than accepted science, if you can't make any testable predictions based on your information, why do you think they are "valid"?

[Dovada]

I will try to simplify things for you by asking the 3 questions below.

 

1: Is gravity a product of mass or not?

 

2: Can and do, atom's process a powerful external cosmic electromagnetic energy?

 

3: If a powerful external cosmic electromagnetic energy field existed why do we not detect it?

 

It is pointless trying answer the questions you have presented to me for example,

The coulomb potential confines the electrons into a set of allowed possible energy levels and the electrons won't orbit around the nucleus instead they form a negative cloud around the nuclues which may have spehrical or non-spherical shapes. Its a direct consequence of the nucleus system or the quantum system, so what is special about that.

Our motion within the cosmos is spiral not orbital, this includes the motion of particles within the atomic model. Current theories do not acknowledge this.

 

You have a proven classical electrical theory which states electric current is the motion of charged particle through a medium: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current Yet you choose to ignore your own electrical theory when it comes to motion of charged particles through the cosmos. This cosmic motion is both real and has a major impact on atomic structure and resonance.

 

Whilst you may understand the motion of an electric charged particle within a magnetic field, you may not have considered the implications of a electrically neutral atom's response to that same field. What would happen if that magnetic field was moving?

 

There are too many flaws in the basic concepts being promoted in science today. It is no wonder Einstein said things like:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

and

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

and

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

and

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

[iNow]

Our motion within the cosmos is spiral not orbital

This is a meaningless statement, as you've not shared "relative to what." It's like you're asking, "What's the difference between a duck?"

 

this includes the motion of particles within the atomic model.

So, you're saying that particle motion is either spiral or orbital, and that you believe it's spiral. Interesting, since "the atomic model" actually shows it to be stochastic.

 

 

Current theories do not acknowledge this.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps you're not the most qualified person to discuss what is and is not acknowledged by current theories. No offense, but credibility is hardly something you've been cultivating and nourishing here in this community with your posts.

 

 

Whilst you may understand the motion of an electric charged particle within a magnetic field, you may not have considered the implications of a electrically neutral atom's response to that same field. What would happen if that magnetic field was moving?

Oooohh... I know! It means god exists, right?

 

 

 

 

 

There are too many flaws in the basic concepts being promoted in science today. It is no wonder Einstein said things like:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

and

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

and

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

and

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

 

If you find yourself in agreement with those cherry picked comments from Einstein, I encourage you to learn a bit more about their context and get a more accurate view of what he actually thought about all of this.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

 

In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three human impulses which develop religious belief: fear, social morality, and a cosmic religious feeling. A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, the individual feels "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner in the third. He maintained, "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere. For Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." He continued:

a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...

An understanding of causality was fundamental to Einstein's ethical beliefs. In Einstein's view, "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science," for religion can always take refuge in areas that science can not yet explain. It was Einstein's belief that in the "struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope" and cultivate the "Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself."

[1=1]

In two words "Not possible":

 

Klaynos the moderator told me not to bring the subject again when he closed the last thread down: http://www.sciencefo...e/page__st__140

 

I have taken enough of a liberty to say what I have said. What I have said is the truth even though there is the claim I do not have evidence for it. I am not an idiot. I am highly skilled in what I do. If you start a thread in asking a question I will attempt to answer but be careful that the moderators do not close the threads down. Sometimes what is obvious to me, can take sometime to work out how to explain it to others.

 

Some knowledge is sightly different to accepted physics, in that current physics does not understand the original concept especially regarding gravitation theory.

 

What I read was, "I am pretty smart, I don't have evidence, I am right." Pleas please please use some evidence its how things work around here. This is how it looks to me IMO. And i also would like to exclude Dovada from any hijacking charges, as i would like to see him discuss these ideas he has.

[Dovada]

This is a meaningless statement, as you've not shared "relative to what." It's like you're asking, "What's the difference between a duck?"

Our motion within the cosmos is spiral not orbital relative to our local galactic velocity.

 

So, you're saying that particle motion is either spiral or orbital, and that you believe it's spiral. Interesting, since "the atomic model" actually shows it to be stochastic.

Do you understand amplitude (stochastic) and frequency modulation. I said "This cosmic motion is both real and has a major impact on atomic structure and resonance". Resonance is included in the motion of particles within the atomic model.

 

 

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps you're not the most qualified person to discuss what is and is not acknowledged by current theories. No offense, but credibility is hardly something you've been cultivating and nourishing here in this community with your posts.

Well answer the question: Do current theories acknowledge our atoms motion within the cosmos.

 

Oooohh... I know! It means god exists, right?

You call this an answer?

 

If you find yourself in agreement with those cherry picked comments from Einstein, I encourage you to learn a bit more about their context and get a more accurate view of what he actually thought about all of this.

Are they not self explanatory?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

There are always variations in aspects of spiritual belief. God is the same God for all of us, (the believers or non-believer). Whatever Einstein's variation of belief was, is not the point in my statement.

 

What happened to my 3 questions?

[1=1]

Our motion within the cosmos is spiral not orbital relative to our local galactic velocity.

 

 

Do you understand amplitude (stochastic) and frequency modulation. I said "This cosmic motion is both real and has a major impact on atomic structure and resonance". Resonance is included in the motion of particles within the atomic model.

 

 

 

Well answer the question: Do current theories acknowledge our atoms motion within the cosmos.

 

 

You call this an answer?

 

 

Are they not self explanatory?

 

 

There are always variations in aspects of spiritual belief. God is the same God for all of us, (the believers or non-believer). Whatever Einstein's variation of belief was, is not the point in my statement.

 

What happened to my 3 questions?

 

Please, just put out a statement with viable evidence. That's all we need. If you can not do that you need to have another look at what you believe.

[Dovada]

Please, just put out a statement with viable evidence. That's all we need. If you can not do that you need to have another look at what you believe.

What viable evidence do you want. Are we in cosmic motion? (Yes). does cosmic motion effect the electric charged particles? (Yes).

 

Basically the neutral atom is kept electromagnetically trapped and locked into moving within the cosmic magnetic environment, classic electrical theory predicts this condition.

 

How simple can I make it for you to understand these things?

Edited February 11, 2012 by Dovada

[1=1]

What viable evidence do you want. Are we not in cosmic motion? (Yes). does cosmic motion effect the electric charged particles? (Yes).

 

Basically the neutral atom is kept electromagnetically trapped and locked into moving within the cosmic magnetic environment, classic electrical theory predicts this condition.

 

How simple can I make it for you to understand these things?

 

I was referring to the claims you have made about being enlightened by the holy spirit, and your reasons for believing in god. I am sorry, I should have specified that.

 

EDIT: I spelt for "foe".

Edited February 11, 2012 by 1=1

[Dovada]

I was referring to the claims you have made about being enlightened by the holy spirit, and your reasons for believing in god. I am sorry, I should have specified that.

 

EDIT: I spelt for "foe".

Vision: For example during sleeping very vivid images showing for an example the planet earth moving along with and within a moving fluid. Plus many other related images. One vision in particular I remember when I was working with atomic structure was the image of myself looking in a mirror. It took a while to work that one out. Then it dawned on me in that the image in the mirror was identical to myself but not the same, everything was in reverse. This helped me to understand that what was happening in the heavens was also happening in reverse within the atomic structure. This was the most helpful of all visions.

 

Where did these visions come from? my imagination? or the living cosmos (God)? What conclusion would you have drawn if you had this same helpful insight?

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Dovado, you've already got a thread on your idea that "cosmic motion" effects atomic systems:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60646-dovadas-new-atomic-model/

Where it is widely discussed and decided that what you're saying is no physically realised. You failed to show there is any absolute velocity, you failed to show an understanding of the observations of atomic orbitals. The bohr model is still wrong.

Discussing it again is going to result in the same conclusion. Your idea is not related to what is actually observed in the universe, sorry. Anyone who's interested can read that other thread. It's not worth discussing it further here so please don't. If you've nothing new to present I suggest you actually go away and do some reading.

Please do not respond to this modnote.

[iNow]

Vision: For example during sleeping very vivid images showing for an example the planet earth moving along with and within a moving fluid. Plus many other related images. One vision in particular I remember when I was working with atomic structure was the image of myself looking in a mirror.

 

<...>

 

Where did these visions come from? my imagination? or the living cosmos (God)? What conclusion would you have drawn if you had this same helpful insight?

People have visions of fairies and leprechauns and giant monsters, too. In fact, this is very common in children and also the mentally ill. I don't think you'd suggest their visions make fairies or leprechauns or giant monsters real, though. You would almost certainly concede that they do not. Given this, why are you here now asking for a double standard to be applied to your holy spirit? Why are you here requesting that we treat your visions as equivalent to evidence? They're not. On balance, it's quite simply much more likely that you have a few screws loose and maybe were high. Just sayin'.

Edited February 11, 2012 by iNow

[njaohnt]

As you have been told before the bible is not evidence, the bible is wrong, it is wrong abotu almost everything is claims, using as evidence is not acceptable.

 

It is evidence! Think about its history.

The Bible is said to have been found in scrolls near and in Isreal. There is no way that it has come from different scrolls all over the place, yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…

The only arguments to that are.

1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?

 

More evidence? The people translating, and copying the Bible were punished, and often killed. That's worth a trick?

 

Also, though the Bible's many copies almost all got burned, not all ever got burned. That's not God's protection?

 

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

[immortal]

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

 

 

If you don't believe in science then why are you on the internet using a computer which was created by computer scientists which works solely based on scientific principles and morever why do you go to a doctor when you're ill, why do you take up medicines which are clinically tested and researched? Why? Can you see how absurd your question is?

[John Cuthber]

"1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?"

More or less.

We know who "they" were,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

we know when they did it

AD 325

and we know why.

Power.

 

 

Incidentally, since the different bits of the gospels and Bible contradict each other it's a bit pointless to say

" yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…"

because they do deny eachother.

 

"You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out. "

Actually, in all sensible probability, you have done the experiment.

Have you noticed that you can see further from higher up- say upstairs in a building or when you climb a hill and admire the view?

That only works because the earth is round.

Please don't waste people's time posting silly things like that.

[njaohnt]

If you don't believe in science then why are you on the internet using a computer which was created by computer scientists which works solely based on scientific principles and morever why do you go to a doctor when you're ill, why do you take up medicines which are clinically tested and researched? Why? Can you see how absurd your question is?

 

I do believe in what they say. They seem to make sense. Just like the Bible does. My answer was not to say that you shouldn't believe them, but why should you believe them, and not the Bible?

 

"Know"

No. You think. Anyone could have got that data(Just wait, don't press the minus for this until I respond to the answer of this next question). Where does it say that they wanted power?

 

Actually, in all sensible probability, you have done the experiment.

Have you noticed that you can see further from higher up- say upstairs in a building or when you climb a hill and admire the view?

That only works because the earth is round.

Please don't waste people's time posting silly things like that.

No, that is wrong. Even if the earth was flat, you could still see farther. Don't call it silly, I am 99% sure that the earth is round, you responded as if I was only 60% sure of it.

Edited February 11, 2012 by njaohnt

[Arete]

"Know"

No. You think. Anyone could have got that data.

 

Have you even tried to understand the distinction between accepting something based on available evidence and believing something based on faith?

 

If so, why do you keep equating the two?

[John Cuthber]

I do believe in what they say. They seem to make sense. Just like the Bible does. My answer was not to say that you shouldn't believe them, but why should you believe them, and not the Bible?

 

"Know"

No. You think. Anyone could have got that data(Just wait, don't press the minus for this until I respond to the answer of this next question). Where does it say that they wanted power?

 

 

No, that is wrong. Even if the earth was flat, you could still see farther. Don't call it silly, I am 99% sure that the earth is round, you responded as if I was only 60% sure of it.

1 They are supported by evidence and the bible isn't, indeed it contradicts itself. Have a look here

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions

 

2 What else would they have done it for? You pointed out that it doesn't make much sense otherwise.

3 the way in which the horizon recedes as you get higher is different for a flat earth, rather than a round one.

You did the experiment- you just didn't know how to interpret it correctly.

I think that's a bit silly.

Edited February 11, 2012 by John Cuthber