quote:
I have received several revelations.
And what mechanism are you using to differentiate a true revelation from a delusion..? How do you know you're not delusional..?
quote:
I base my views not on 1 revelation but on several revelations.
It is just as easy, or hard, to have one delusional incident as it is to have a hundred. If you're delusional then you have delusions, and the number of delusions is not pertinent, just the intensity and duration. So how do you know you're not delusional..?
quote:
This is like looking at the fossil record, and then realizing fossils come out of the ground in a certain order. Apes earlier, humans first, etc.
It's difficult for me to believe you're this obtuse. The fossil record isn't happening in someone's head without empirical evidence. The fossil record exists in physical reality. Others can review the fossils and determine if their views are correct or not. These revelations are only seen by you, and there is no methodology for anyone to review them objectively.
quote:
This does not mean God does not exist, it just means we don't have a good understanding perhaps, or God does not exist.
Nothing like hedging your bets, is there. This doesn't mean there is no God, unless it does. I'm beginning to think you're a POE.
quote:
There is more than 1 conclusion.
But none of your suppositions support any of your conclusions. Saying something is so, doesn't make it so.
quote:
As time proceeds we gather facts and build conclusions.
That's not how it works. Now I understand. You don't know anything about how logic works, so of course you keep making inane and insipid comments like this one. You build premises, from which you draw a conclusion. Facts will help you support your premises, and show that they are true, but it is the premise that leads to the conclusion, not facts.
quote:
Revelation upon revelation upon revelation has lead me to know God is real, does exist and is answering my prayers.
Which does not explain how you know the revelations are real and not simply delusions. Do you recognize that people have religious delusions..? Do you recognize that people can hear aural and see visual hallucinations, which appear quite real, but are not..? Confirmation bias and after this therefore because of this reasoning are hardly the tools of a critical thinker.
quote:
This is not Science, this is theology. Theology is a different tool but does work well with Science.
No it doesn't. Theology relies on faith, and faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is gullibility. Faith is believing something is true without evidence, or in face of contradictory evidence. Science does not and never will rely on faith, and neither should we.
quote:
An atheist without an open mind is like a Christian without an open mind, idiotic.
Did you read that in a fortune cookie. That kind of talk is referred to by Daniel Dennett as a deepity. Having an open mind is one thing, but believing in the supernatural without any convincing and verifiable evidence is idiotic alright. The point was that I don't believe you were ever an atheist, because an atheist wouldn't pray even as a test. An agnostic might do a test, but not an atheist.
quote:
quote:
How do you know they weren't coincidences, or confirmation bias, or delusion..? What kinds of double blind tests did you run..?
People prayed for things for me and I didn't know anything about it, because of where I was in life. Then later I found out they prayed for me and I received what they had prayed about.
And how is that anything other than after this therefore because of this..? Correlation does not prove causation. So, months or years after someone prayed for you, looking back you were able to find something that met your expectation of what constitutes divine intercession, and that was what convinced you..? Please tell me you have more than this..? How do you know they prayed at all..?
quote:
I have also heard other people with similar stories.
Me too. I've had schizophrenics tell me how they had conversations with the Archangel Gabriel, but that doesn't mean they did.
quote:
I may not able to quantify it for you, because you can't relive my history but you can pray if you are open minded and receive revelation.
You can't even quantify it for you, let alone me. I have prayed, just like you. However, I decided after years of nothing happening that I was just talking to myself, and that was exactly what the evidence supported. Now how do you know these so-called revelations are true and real, and not delusions..?
quote:
I doubt you would give it a chance though, which is why you are stuck in your view God does not exist.
My view that God does not exist is based on a lack of convincing evidence. Your assertion that God does exist is completely without merit, and based solely on something happening in your head. Can you provide any evidence that these revelations are not wholly a construct of your mind..?
quote:
A close mind is like a closed door.
I'm sure you mean a closed mind, because I don't know what a "close mind" is. More fortune cookie wisdom..? "In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. We are curious but cautious." Michael Schermer. "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."
quote:
I am not an atheist anymore. I opened the door and walked outside to see things I couldn't see from inside the room. If you only stand by atheism you will not get to see other avenues of existence.
I'm perfectly willing to address any or all of these so-called avenues of existence, and all you have to do is show them to me. Oh wait, that's too difficult. Sorry, I don't except that there is any other reality than what we see and hear and taste, unless you have evidence. Do you have evidence..? Non-belief is the default position whenever there is a lack of evidence, and atheism is non-belief.
quote:
Most likely things are still not what they appear.
I wrote that things are not always as they appear, especially if you're delusional. Believing in something sans evidence is foolish, and it can be demonstrated that it is against our very natures.
quote:
You can't go anywhere, even though there is many places to go in existence.
Could you be a little less ambiguous..? What are you rambling on about now..? I can go anywhere I choose. There is however only one plane of existence, and that is this physical reality, of the here and now. Do you know of some other..? Do you have evidence for its existence..? Do you know the difference between physical and conceptual..?
quote:
Just because you become scientific about things does not mean your Science is correct.
I don't "become scientific about things." I use the scientific method to determine what is real and true, because we have no other methodology that has consistently proven to be correct. Science is the best method of determining physical reality, and faith is the worst.
quote:
Just because a theory lives a century does not mean it will not be changed later.
Huh..? That is the nature of science. It conforms to the physical universe and the empirical evidence around us. That is the failure of faith and religion, because they do not.
Do you understand how science works, because it appears you don't..?
An hypothesis is developed to explain the evidence, and after time (sometimes a lot of time) it is refined into a theory. The theory explains all the evidence and tells us why. There may be refinements to the theory as better and more facts are gathered, but it wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't already close to a full explanation. A theory never graduates into a fact, because facts are explained by the theory.
quote:
The electric universe theory is shattering gravitation theories.
Ah, that "theory".
"The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvn. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.
EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control.
Immanuel Velikovsky was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas, seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his scenario of planetary billiards, cosmic thunderbolts, and the notion that Earth was previously a satellite of Saturn."
ROFL
Case in point.
™ Version 4.2
(1)