The Sun Will Be Darkened

[Nearly Sane]

You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science like the resurrection as they are not credible!

He may have been asked, but as previously pointed out, it is essentially irrelevant. He is right or wrong, and the arguments should be dealt with independent of the strangely prevelant argumentum ad certificatem that is cropping up frequently in the forum this week.

[floo]

He may have been asked, but as previously pointed out, it is essentially irrelevant. He is right or wrong, and the arguments should be dealt with independent of the strangely prevelant argumentum ad certificatem that is cropping up frequently in the forum this week.

And in English please???

[ippy]

I thought it was Isaac Newton who discovered gravity?

Wasn't it discovered on one of those cooking programs, as usual we only got their stock answer.

ippy

[floo]

Wasn't it discovered on one of those cooking programs, as usual we only got their stock answer.

ippy

I don't watch cookery programmes, they are MEGA BORING as far as I am concerned!

[Nearly Sane]

And in English please???

Other than being slightly inventive about the normal phraseology of fallacies, e.g: argumentum ad populum (commonly used on here), it was English, I would have expected a fairly mid range reader to have been able to see certificatem/certificate, and to understand the metonymy used.

What bits are you struggling with?

[ippy]

Outrider, Floo, Shaker, ippy, Hope:


Everything I say is built on top of modern science so that every science beneath it is supported by it, but it also exposes the fact that the Holy Bible is brought to us from the same route as this unifying science which tells us how the universe came into existence, how atoms and atomic forces were born, how gravity works and how electromagnetism is the kicking force that is exposed when we jiggle around with these dimensional forces that hold the atomic particles together..i.e. the Higgs (imploding force) bosun.

So…via the Holy Bible and in particular the Gospels we are guided into this science via the most important aspect that it offers us. The emotional state of the human being…What drives it and how it can work without injury and how it can recover from injury to such an extent that everlasting life becomes possible…all achievable by the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.

So, where’s the argument??

NM, without going into the inns and outs of your religious ideas just put that lot to one side only for a moment, got that?

Could you give me a rational explanation of how it can make sense to use an assertion to back up, or to prove if you like another assertion?

Don't forget that you're being asked for this explanation completely outside, separated from anything to do with your religion?

ippy

[ippy]

I don't watch cookery programmes, they are MEGA BORING as far as I am concerned!

I'll go with that but they do get into quantum mechanics on most of their programmes, well they might as well for all the interest they are to me too Floo.

ippy   

[floo]

Other than being slightly inventive about the normal phraseology of fallacies, e.g: argumentum ad populum (commonly used on here), it was English, I would have expected a fairly mid range reader to have been able to see certificatem/certificate, and to understand the metonymy used.

What bits are you struggling with?

Never mind dear!

[NicholasMarks]

You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science, like the resurrection, as they are not credible!

I think the question that should be asked here Floo...is...What qualifications have you got to say I am wrong??

A working knowledge of the Holy Bible would be a good starting point.

For my part I am simply saying, which is both proven by Biblical quotation and the investigations of modern science that there is an invisible,  superabundant, dynamic material come energy, that is indestructible, that resides within the universe.

This material/energy has been totally, scientifically conquered, by an authority that delivered us knowledge of this science under the banner of the one who owns that science...Almighty God...and, 2000 years ago, Jesus showed us how to harness that science for the purposes of repair, resurrection, and everlasting life...and really, that is all the qualification I need.

The rest is up to the individual who values the teaching of Jesus Christ to reach out for his science before the planet slips its orbital mooring.

[Outrider]

I think the question that should be asked here Floo...is...What qualifications have you got to say I am wrong??

I don't know what qualifications Floo has, I have a degree in Engineering, a degree in Science and I'm working on one in Maths and Statistics, none of which changes anything: it doesn't matter whether someone's passed an exam in it or not, science is such that the argument stands for itself. You haven't made an argument, you've made some assertions. You don't need a qualification in science to know that you've not been reporting scientific findings.

A working knowledge of the Holy Bible would be a good starting point.

Why? The bible isn't a scientific work, it's at best a depiction of a philosophy.

For my part I am simply saying, which is both proven by Biblical quotation and the investigations of modern science that there is an invisible,  superabundant, dynamic material come energy, that is indestructible within the universe.

That isn't 'proven by Biblical quotation' but it's broadly in line with conventional scientific thinking, yes.

This material/energy has been totally, and scientifically conquered by an authority that delivered us knowledge of this science under the banner of the one who owns that science...

And that's where you just hit assertion. You might believe that your god is a scientist, but you've no evidence that it is a scientist, or even that it is.

Almighty God, and, 2000 years ago, he showed us how to harness that science for the purposes of repair, resurrection, and everlasting life...and really, that is all the qualification I need.

Even if that were a science, given that the experiment hasn't been replicated, it's at best highly questionable.

The rest is up to the individual who values the teaching of Jesus Christ to reach out for his science before the planet slips its orbital mooring.

Nothing in Jesus' teachings has any impact on orbital mechanics or gravitation.

O.

[ippy]

NM you haven't answered post 55 on this thread yet, is there a problem with it or yourself?

I look forward to finding out what your viewpoint is about assertions, taking everything referred to in post 55, on this thread, into consideration.

ippy

[NicholasMarks]

Outrider:

You do your qualifications a disservice by not being able to see that a people 2000 years ago would have to be fed a scientific milk type science to get any grasp of the benefits of that science...You, however, have a full capability to know this world is heading for a great fall and therefore your constant barrage against a loving and caring teaching is inexcusable.

Gravity isn't a force with no strings, as is presented by your science...There are positive strings which follow positive patterns. The universe didn't just spring out of a dot smaller than an atom, implied by your sciences, it is the result of a complicated set of forces that were not only born from zero energy but created zero energy.

It is all written about in the Holy Bible...the one valid document that you refuse point blank to take any notice of so where is your credibility if you ignore a huge part of the data that has been set before you.

[floo]

I think the question that should be asked here Floo...is...What qualifications have you got to say I am wrong??

A working knowledge of the Holy Bible would be a good starting point.

For my part I am simply saying, which is both proven by Biblical quotation and the investigations of modern science that there is an invisible,  superabundant, dynamic material come energy, that is indestructible, that resides within the universe.

This material/energy has been totally, scientifically conquered, by an authority that delivered us knowledge of this science under the banner of the one who owns that science...Almighty God...and, 2000 years ago, Jesus showed us how to harness that science for the purposes of repair, resurrection, and everlasting life...and really, that is all the qualification I need.

The rest is up to the individual who values the teaching of Jesus Christ to reach out for his science before the planet slips its orbital mooring.

I probably know that book better than you! At least I don't use my imagination to read into it what isn't there! You obviously have no scientific qualifications whatsoever, and use the term often inappropriately to try to add credence to your assertions, which make them even sillier than they already are, imo!

[floo]

Outrider:

You do your qualifications a disservice by not being able to see that a people 2000 years ago would have to be fed a scientific milk type science to get any grasp of the benefits of that science...You, however, have a full capability to know this world is heading for a great fall and therefore your constant barrage against a loving and caring teaching is inexcusable.

Gravity isn't a force with no strings, as is presented by your science...There are positive strings which follow positive patterns. The universe didn't just spring out of a dot smaller than an atom, implied by your sciences, it is the result of a complicated set of forces that were not only born from zero energy but created zero energy.

It is all written about in the Holy Bible...the one valid document that you refuse point blank to take any notice of so where is your credibility if you ignore a huge part of the data that has been set before you.

OH DEAR!

[BashfulAnthony]

You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science, like the resurrection, as they are not credible!

What theological qualifications do you have?  I wonder if any atheist on here has any:  or any other qualifications, either?

[Outrider]

What theological qualifications do you have?  I wonder if any atheist on here has any:  or any other qualifications, either?

And as we keep pointing out, qualifications aren't that important in a debate as the argument has to stand for itself, not on your certifications, even if you could demonstrate that a Theology qualification was worth more than a napkin.

O.

[Shaker]

What theological qualifications do you have?  I wonder if any atheist on here has any:  or any other qualifications, either?

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11220.msg571681#msg571681

[BashfulAnthony]

And as we keep pointing out, qualifications aren't that important in a debate as the argument has to stand for itself, not on your certifications, even if you could demonstrate that a Theology qualification was worth more than a napkin.

O.

It helps to have some sort of decent background in the subject you are debating, as in any subject, rather than being bound by your bias, and having to rely on Google.

[Outrider]

It helps to have some sort of decent background in the subject you are debating, as in any subject, rather than being bound by your bias, and having to rely on Google.

Subject or topic? We all have a reasonable background in reality, which equips us to talk about whether there's any reason to think there's a god in it. You have to have established that before you get to the point where you're talking about the qualities of any gods, but nobody gets past that first hurdle.

As to not relying on Google, why not - if the argument works it doesn't matter where it comes from.

O.

[Shaker]

We all have a reasonable background in reality

You and your wild ideas, big O!

[floo]

Even someone with the highest level of theological qualifications still can't prove a deity exists or that Jesus actually resurrected.

[Outrider]

You and your wild ideas, big O!

It's like school - everyone goes, but some listen and some spend their time staring out the window

O.

[ippy]

Hi there NM it looks like you may have missed my previous posts on this thread about, without going into the inns and outs of your religious ideas just put that lot to one side only for a moment, got that?

Could you give me a rational explanation of how it can make sense to use an assertion to back up, or to prove if you like another assertion?

Don't forget that you're being asked for this explanation completely outside, separated from anything to do with your religion?

It would be very interesting to know how you would interpret assertions, or what your angle is on this subject, without any reference to religion, of course?

ippy 

[floo]

It's like school - everyone goes, but some listen and some spend their time staring out the window

O.

At my primary school in the 50s the windows were designed to be too high for kids to look out of!

[BashfulAnthony]

Subject or topic? We all have a reasonable background in reality, which equips us to talk about whether there's any reason to think there's a god in it. You have to have established that before you get to the point where you're talking about the qualities of any gods, but nobody gets past that first hurdle.

As to not relying on Google, why not - if the argument works it doesn't matter where it comes from.

O...

Yes, but when it comes to being specific about aspects of the Bible, to discuss them with any degree of authority you need some learning background.  I would have thought that was pretty obvious to anyone!  As to Google:  it is useful ad long as you use it intelligently, and not merely as an adjunct  to your particular slant.  And How many people here quote from google having checked the credentials and authorship of the site?  Not many I suggest.