Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You show your illogical thinking by using my supposed reliance on what has been evidenced by science and so has not been debunked by anything, least of all your attempts to fiddle science (and logic) to support your Beliefs. Your attempt to fiddle mental EM energy into the evidence for a cosmic consciousness was debunked recently as was your effort to wangle the time-space cone (Minkowski's theorem)into some evidence for 'God' when the theory shows that nothing outside can affect (or effect) anything within it. And the ongoing efforts to reverse the burden of proof was shown up not long ago. In fact, I'd just answered this argument of yours yesterday. You don't seem to be able to remember any debunk even that happened a few posts ago. What is this problem with your memory, old mate?[/i]
Positive Christianity incorporates existing science as I do or it is negative Christianity. Your complete ignorance of the science on which my extrapolations are based disqualifies you from pretending to assess whether or not I have been debunked by anyone. The fact that consciousness ARISES as a COMPOSITE within the resonant neural activity (which has no physical "substance") places it beyond our meager EM measurement capabilities in the 5% of our Reality. That plausibly places it as some kind of "EM-like" phenomenon within the 95% unmeasurable part of our Reality. You can disbelieve that but you cannot refute its plausibility since there has not been any other locus (certainly not within the brain) for the composite consciousness that manifests as our Self. So much for your "measured EM" debunk. A panENtheistic God (my view) is BOTH immanent (within our Measured 5%) and transcendent (within the Unmeasurable 95%). So much for your debunk of Minkowski's formulation of our measured 5%.
Bur the bold is NOT what I do and it is a straw man argument against what I DO in response to your so-called logic and evidence. This IS straw-manning because you pretend that there is no such thing as plausible hypotheses based on existing knowledge in the area of the currently unknown. Plausible hypotheses are NOT just making things up. It is how science expands current knowledge. Yes, they need to be fully tested before accepting them, but dismissing them as "believing what you want" or "making things up" is definitely "straw-manning." Just because you do not know enough to comprehend the plausibility of my extrapolations of the existing science does NOT justify your dismissal as just "believing what I want" or "making things up." Your default is NOT supported by existing evidence as it currently is so your standing on very thin ice throwing rocks from a very glass house. It is just your PREFERENCE for the unknown.
You're off topic to the thread I began. Please stop. If you want to post your theory AGAIN, there's a button that will allow you to start your own thread.
It will in interesting to watch how the larger christian community comes down this minister.
Signs are cheap.
I used to belong to an urban congregation where the pastor had said, "Nobody in this congregation need ever worry about having food to eat, clothes to wear, or a place to sleep--and everyone is free to join."
That same pastor provided confidential safe houses for abused wives, where the "Security Ministry" would go in while the husband was away, move the woman and children to the safe house, and a team of men including member police, counselors, and more burly Security Ministry men would wait for the husband to return.
"Who are you? Where is my wife?"
"Our dear sister is safe. She will remain safe. But we are going to talk, because we won't tolerate what you're doing to her."
I love being tolerated.
I don't need anyone to accept me, love me or hate me.
Tolerance is respectful and says a lot for that person that they are open to
being casually detached and live and let live.
Yes.
Back in the early 60s, we did not ever expect white people to like us. We just wanted them to tolerate us sitting next to them in the bus, or movie theater, or school room (I never got to see any of the Disney classics as a child because those were played at the whites-only theater).
People are different in this world, and different in many ways. A lot of those differences stink--literally, sometimes. If I'm sitting next to someone in a bus who doesn't believe in bathing--ever--I'm going to tolerate him, but I'm not going to celebrate his life choice.
I used to belong to an urban congregation where the pastor had said, "Nobody in this congregation need ever worry about having food to eat, clothes to wear, or a place to sleep--and everyone is free to join."
That same pastor provided confidential safe houses for abused wives, where the "Security Ministry" would go in while the husband was away, move the woman and children to the safe house, and a team of men including member police, counselors, and more burly Security Ministry men would wait for the husband to return.
"Who are you? Where is my wife?"
"Our dear sister is safe. She will remain safe. But we are going to talk, because we won't tolerate what you're doing to her."
Signs may be cheap. But messages can change perspectives. All the great leaders (and the not so great) know that. MLK knew it -- "I have a dream" was a message that changed things immensely.
Signs may be cheap. But messages can change perspectives. All the great leaders (and the not so great) know that. MLK knew it -- "I have a dream" was a message that changed things immensely.
Most people will never acknowledge Billy Graham's role in the Civil Rights movement and his inspiration for MLK. They would rather choose to believe the secular fairy tale.
Most people will never acknowledge Billy Graham's role in the Civil Rights movement and his inspiration for MLK. They would rather choose to believe the secular fairy tale.
Most people will never acknowledge Billy Graham's role in the Civil Rights movement and his inspiration for MLK. They would rather choose to believe the secular fairy tale.
He was hardly in the forefront of civil rights. He deserves little credit for what was accomplished by those who actually actively worked for civil rights.
You're off topic to the thread I began. Please stop. If you want to post your theory AGAIN, there's a button that will allow you to start your own thread.
Positive Christianity incorporates existing science as I do or it is negative Christianity that violates what we know to be true about our Reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
