Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chariots of God (Scripture & Photo Examined)
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 46 of 1310 (751278)
03-02-2015 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coragyps
03-01-2015 10:29 AM


Re: Church of the Immaculate Reflection
Are these chariots of iron, or of some lesser material like bronze or gopher wood?
I would have thought that the creator of All Things would have used some fancy composite material that mixed high strength with low weight: like those new fangled tennis rachets.
Not simply those materials people had access to in those days.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 03-01-2015 10:29 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 47 of 1310 (751279)
03-02-2015 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by AZPaul3
03-01-2015 10:25 PM


Re: It's the law
Well done sire.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 03-01-2015 10:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 03-02-2015 4:44 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 48 of 1310 (751280)
03-02-2015 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ScottRP
03-01-2015 6:04 PM


Christianity is based on faith. One should not require evidence.
So what you are saying is that it is so because you believe it to be so?
Grow up.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ScottRP, posted 03-01-2015 6:04 PM ScottRP has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 1310 (751288)
03-02-2015 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ScottRP
03-01-2015 6:04 PM


Yawn yet again.
Christianity is based on faith. One should not require evidence.
Too funny.
What does Zek have to do with Christianity? Zek is a Hebrew (not Christian) prophet and so acknowledged by Islam, Bah', Judaism and Christianity.
But your claims should never be accepted simply on faith and do require evidence. Until that evidence is presented and tested you are just spouting bullshit and fantasy.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ScottRP, posted 03-01-2015 6:04 PM ScottRP has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:34 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 1310 (751289)
03-02-2015 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by ScottRP
03-01-2015 8:53 PM


Re: It's the law
What is it that you mean by Poe? Are you atheist?
I am certainly not an atheist but so far you have not shown the originality to qualify even as a Poe.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ScottRP, posted 03-01-2015 8:53 PM ScottRP has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 51 of 1310 (751294)
03-02-2015 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by frako
03-01-2015 7:48 PM


Fracking with Frako
The problem is that we don't necessarily know the sum and totality of reality. I would argue that evidence alone is insufficient to define a definite reality.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by frako, posted 03-01-2015 7:48 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 03-02-2015 9:55 AM Phat has replied
 Message 59 by frako, posted 03-02-2015 10:05 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 1310 (751295)
03-02-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
03-02-2015 9:03 AM


Re: Yawn yet again.
jar writes:
...your claims should never be accepted simply on faith and do require evidence. Until that evidence is presented and tested you are just spouting bullshit and fantasy.
Some claims have no evidence.
Evidence is often lacking. The definition of the concept of "supernatural" is a good example. There is no evidence. This does not mean that the concept is a fantasy by default.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 03-02-2015 9:03 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 03-02-2015 9:36 AM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 1310 (751296)
03-02-2015 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
03-02-2015 9:34 AM


Re: Yawn yet again.
Evidence is often lacking. The definition of the concept of "supernatural" is a good example. There is no evidence. This does not mean that the concept is a fantasy by default.
A claim that something is supernatural certainly needs evidence, very very very strong evidence, to be taken as other than fantasy.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:34 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:40 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 1310 (751297)
03-02-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ScottRP
02-28-2015 1:30 PM


Extending our vision beyond mere dust, many believe that it is an "angel orb". Others, including myself believe that it is of a real supernatural spiritual entity. I believe that this photograph is a far lesser form of Ezekiel's wheels, described by the early Jewish Merkabah mystics as a chariot of God.
And I believe that you are wrong. I believe it is just a speck of dust.
So now what?
I believe it to be unwise to diminish the value of a photograph which may support Ezekiel's Vision of God.
I believe it is unwise to employ wishful thinking in order to see things as you would wish that they would be.
I asked you earlier and you never explained: What is it that makes you think this thing is something spiritual?
Added by edit:
Christianity is based on faith. One should not require evidence.
Then why are you going on about photographic evidence?
Many turn their heads in disbelief of evidence.
Like how you're turning your head to the fact that it is just a piece of dust?
I believe that the OT shines a small light on Ezekiel's Vision of God.
But all these "spirit orbs" are around the same size (the size you would expect from dust). Do you have any photos of these orbs that are any larger than a piece of dust could make? Anything at all approaching the size of what Ezekiel saw?
If not, why do you think that is the case?
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ScottRP, posted 02-28-2015 1:30 PM ScottRP has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 55 of 1310 (751299)
03-02-2015 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
03-02-2015 9:36 AM


Re: Yawn yet again.
jar writes:
A claim that something is supernatural certainly needs evidence, very very very strong evidence, to be taken as other than fantasy.
Ok...point taken.
Do we have the right to judge someones belief as fantasy? If so is it because evidence is lacking? Why cant we just say that we dont know if they are right or not?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 03-02-2015 9:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 03-02-2015 9:43 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2015 9:45 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 56 of 1310 (751300)
03-02-2015 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
03-02-2015 9:40 AM


Re: Yawn yet again.
Do we have the right to judge someones belief as fantasy? If so is it because evidence is lacking? Why cant we just say that we dont know if they are right or not?
Once they assert that something is more than just a belief, that it is a reality, evidence is required.
I have absolutely no problem accepting that Scott believes what he asserts. But without evidence I can only conclude that it is just fantasy.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:40 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 57 of 1310 (751301)
03-02-2015 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
03-02-2015 9:40 AM


Re: Yawn yet again.
Do we have the right to judge someones belief as fantasy?
Its my hot body, I'll do what I want.
If so is it because evidence is lacking?
That, and because we have evidence that what they are looking at is just a piece of dust.
Why cant we just say that we dont know if they are right or not?
We could, but in this case we do know; Spirit orbs are just dust.
Why withhold the truth and evidence? Why lie about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:40 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 58 of 1310 (751304)
03-02-2015 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
03-02-2015 9:31 AM


Re: Fracking with Frako
I would argue that evidence alone is insufficient to define a definite reality.
What is your rationale for that?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:31 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 10:21 AM Larni has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 59 of 1310 (751307)
03-02-2015 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
03-02-2015 9:31 AM


Re: Fracking with Frako
The problem is that we don't necessarily know the sum and totality of reality. I would argue that evidence alone is insufficient to define a definite reality.
How else can we? By guessing?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 03-02-2015 9:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 60 of 1310 (751310)
03-02-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Larni
03-02-2015 9:55 AM


Re: Fracking with Frako
Larni writes:
What is your rationale for that?
Personal experience.
Frako writes:
How else can we?
Trusting our personal experience.
By guessing?
Are you suggesting that unevidenced faith is the same thing as guessing?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 03-02-2015 9:55 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 03-02-2015 10:39 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 63 by frako, posted 03-02-2015 10:40 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024