Define God

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

So it was a guess. Why are you saying it is not?

Just tryin' to get CI to help me gang up on ya, I guess. Laughing

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
So it was a guess. Why are you saying it is not?
Just tryin' to get CI to help me gang up on ya, I guess.

I see.

Okay. Smile

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Ain't this fun, Frank?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Ain't this fun, Frank?

I enjoy it...and I'm happy you do also. Wink

Taking any of this give-and-take too seriously is a big mistake.

0 Replies

@neologist,

All of your references that mention death and the dead directly are from Old Testament books that were written in Hebrew that use the word muth, and the passages that you quote in Ecclesiastes do illustrate the way the word is being used there. As I've already mentioned, though, the words for death and the dead in the Greek used in the New Testament are thanatos and nekros which have the idea of the separation of the soul/spirit from the body and fit the narratives about Jesus' resurrection found in 1 Peter and Revelation.

I don't know what you mean by hellfire, but the passage you quote in Jeremiah denounces the practice of human sacrifice.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, you are wrong. What this expansion does is it refutes Einstein's theory of relativity. Rather than objects moving closer together, the expansion of space shows that they are moving apart.

... and do you understand that the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric you are talking about is math solution of the Einstein's field equations of general relativity. If 'this expansion' as you call it refutes Einstein's theory of relativity (BTW which one - the general or the special) it does not acknowledge Einstein's field equations of general relativity, hence it does not acknowledge its own metrics, hence it does not acknowledge itself ... and actually pronounces itself as inconsistent.

Quote:

Do you really understand Einstein's theory?

I am reading it, but I have some problems with the dilation of time. Anyway.
I have some other problems right now.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald, I'm not a scientist, and I can only understand scientific theories stated in very simple terms. The following article is one of those.

Quote:

The following is from a paper by Michael Suede: knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#
Results
* Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of static build up induced error on the gyros.[1] The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. Given that a purely hypothetical model was used to massage the data, the reports findings lack any definitive proof of frame dragging.[2]

* The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. LIGO (on the fourth science run [S4]) and GEO600 together did not detect any gravitational waves.[3] To date, LIGO's fifth science run [S5], which had all three interferometers running continuously in triple-coincidence for an entire year, has not yielded any gravitational wave candidates.[4] These non-detections directly refute previous theory and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.[5]

* The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying[6], nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment.[7] This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed "missing mass" of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

* A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation.[8][9] This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Article on the subject here.

* The WMAP has shown the existence of large scale cold and hot spots in the supposed "cosmic background" from the big bang.[10] These cold and hot spots were not predicted and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I can only understand scientific theories stated in very simple terms. The following article is one of those.

You are not reading scientific theories. You are reading scientific (and pseudosicentific) articles with opinions and hypothesis and comments on other comments ... and eventually on scientfic theories ... without any verification and validation of the statements.

The scientific theories are read in original.
First you read the definitions of the terms used there:
tangent vector, tensor, metric g, parallel transport, torsion, Riemann curvature tensor, Einstein's tensor, Ricci tensor, raise an index, Ricci scalar, stress-energy tensor, and Einstein's equation.

Then you read the math:
w' - w = -ε2R(u,v,w)+terms of order ε3 (1)
g(v,w) = gab va wb (2)
R(u,v,w)a = Rabcd ub vc wd (3)
Rbd = Rcbcd (4)
Rad = gab Rbd (5)
R = Raa (6)
Gab = Rab - (1/2)R gab (7)
T(u,v) = Tab ua vb (8)
G = T (9)
Gab = 8 π k/c2 Tab (10)

.... and hardly after that, and not before, you may go reading any interpretations and comments.
Otherwise you may end up knowing all the comments without having the vaguest idea of what the theory is all about.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Not true; most scientific theories are just that; theories. Many areas of science are still based on theory without absolutes, because information may not be complete. That's what makes science more reliable then hearsay. They continue to investigate current theories to support or negate what's been established in the past.

Your formula can be based on "garbage in, garbage out." I wouldn't know, and don't care. There are people who can agree or refute your formula. I just don't trust one person's opinion on most things. That you even bothered to present your formula is laughable at best.

Provide me the proof?

Is that simple enough for you?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Jews understood the death of the soul (nephesh) as noted in Ezekiel 18:4, to be cessation of consciousness. The concept of an immortal soul lies in the distorted meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” coming primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from the pagan philosophy of the Greeks.

It is understandable that folks would hold to the idea of immortality, since, of all the animals, humans alone seem capable of realizing indefinite time. That, in itself, does not disprove mortality.

I put the citation about hellfire in there to remind RF that God does not contemplate the kind of torture humans often inflict on other humans. So, how could he allow humans to suffer infinite torture for sins that are finite?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not true; most scientific theories are just that; theories. . .

Thank you for that.
So, what you are actually saying is that "truth" is arrived at by considering the preponderance of evidence. And, as we gather and collate more and more evidence, "truth" becomes more and more apparent.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Something like that; but there are objective truths that will not change regardless of who the observer is.

1 Reply

But what is Truth? What is Reality?
Can we trust our human minds and senses to correctly see the world around us? For example our eyes and brains tell us these wheels are turning, but they're not.. Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rotsnake.jpg

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

You can't prove anything about religion with visuals or anything else; there's nothing on this planet that can provide any evidence of your god.

Try science.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Something like that; but there are objective truths that will not change regardless of who the observer is.

I can agree with that

0 Replies

Cicerone said:

Quote:

You can't prove anything about religion with visuals or anything else; there's nothing on this planet that can provide any evidence of your god.
Try science

The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is-
"It decided to create itself"

Hahaha, scientists are funny guys hahaha.. Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

It did create itself. You should try studying a little science. It's called evolution.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well I did somehow manage to get College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science in 1963.
I specialised in Physics because I couldn't stand chemistry (too smelly) and biology (too stomach-churning), here's a pic of one of my old schools in Leicester, England-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/AldNewts.jpg

(PS- Richard III's body was found in a car park just across the road from it earlier this year)

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

For someone who claims to have studied physics, your inability to understand the fundamentals of evolution can only mean your education was piss poor.

Quote:

It has been famously said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Statistical physics is playing increasingly important roles in quantifying evolution theory.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It did create itself. You should try studying a little science. It's called evolution.

Are you implying volition?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know