[duffyd (OP)]

The rule says:

The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.

I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.

I want to thank you again, Kryptid. THANK YOU! How refreshing to read your reply. It means a lot to me. What you said makes perfect sense to me. i understand it and respect it. And, I appreciate you pointing out that you are new and don't presume to have all the answers. Keep your current attitude. I am certain you are going to do a very fine job.

[duffyd (OP)]

Jeffreyh the Delight
"You want everyone else to believe in something you were told was true. Without any evidence. Because the grown ups that taught you that were the ones you thought you could trust implicitly.
That isn't going to happen. So, no matter how hard you try and however long you try, to beat them down with my your evangelising, some will just ignore you. Others will just laugh.
That is the way of the world. You may find some kindred souls but you share an affinity with the foil hat brigade. Just as misguided and just as dangerous to those with any sanity left.

Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates."

Another wonderful example of the love flowing from my adoring public. The respectful tone is what stands out. Mind you, Jeff just pops in and out from nowhere whenever the spirit strikes, directing his edifying comments at me out of the blue. I have no idea who he is, what he wants, what he's doing here, but he's always eager to unleash his kind, insightful thoughts at me free of charge.
I was never told by a parent to believe anything except that religion is the most evil influence ever--in the entire world, in all recorded history.

[duffyd (OP)]

Quote from: jeffreyH on 04/04/2020 12:57:40
"Why can't god force someone to love it? Is it unaware of psychology, manipulation or hypnotism? Didn't it create those things? You seem to be able to attach anything to this god. It's almost as if it is a convenient mouthpiece for your own opinions. No matter how horrendous they are. Am I correct?"

You are always correct big boy. I didn't realize how much you care, you big sweetie.
He failed sophomore geometry. Gd has to work on his concentration lapses. Good point jeffreyh.

[Colin2B]

Bruce Metzger,  “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

This quotation contains an illogical sleight of hand. He states that the evidence is overwhelming, but uses the disciples belief as ‘proof’. However, belief is not proof of the existence of the object of that belief eg the resurrection.

Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.

Scientists do not dismiss it, but they recognise it as belief, and also recognise that belief is a very powerful emotion  and strong motivator, both for good and evil. However, when we are talking about credible evidence, belief is not good enough, even when something is believed by a large number of people.
In another thread I gave one example where most of the citizens of the world believed something we now know to be incorrect; there are many other examples. We really cannot rely on belief for credible evidence.

What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God. Even if you were to prove that Jesus existed, died on the cross, and survived, and people believe he is the son of God, you do not thereby prove the existence of God. Neither can you look back at historical texts and prove the existence of God; such texts only tell us what was believed at the time. If you want to provide credible scientific evidence for the existence of God today, you have to use the scientific method. Asking people’s opinion is of no help whatsoever.
Are you able to propose a way of using the scientific method to determine whether there is credible evidence of his existence? And I don’t mean credible evidence of people’s belief in him. Bear in mind that there are alternative beliefs about Jesus eg by Muslims, and those beliefs are no less meaningful and influential to them as they are to you.

I don’t believe it is possible to use science or any other method to prove or provide evidence of God. In the end all you show is belief.

In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.

We all appreciate the strength of your belief and what it means to you and how much you want to share that belief. However, this is not the best forum to to share that belief, because as you say you can end up evangelising. You may be surprised to hear that you have been given more leeway than most, please don’t abuse it.

By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently.

Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question. It is not harassment to ask for evidence of your statements.

please stop harassing me.

Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.

[Bored chemist]

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[Bored chemist]

Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question.

The thing he really needs to do is stop making false statements.

[duffyd (OP)]

Bruce Metzger,  “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

This quotation contains an illogical sleight of hand. He states that the evidence is overwhelming, but uses the disciples belief as ‘proof’. However, belief is not proof of the existence of the object of that belief eg the resurrection.

Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.

Scientists do not dismiss it, but they recognise it as belief, and also recognise that belief is a very powerful emotion  and strong motivator, both for good and evil. However, when we are talking about credible evidence, belief is not good enough, even when something is believed by a large number of people.
In another thread I gave one example where most of the citizens of the world believed something we now know to be incorrect; there are many other examples. We really cannot rely on belief for credible evidence.

What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God. Even if you were to prove that Jesus existed, died on the cross, and survived, and people believe he is the son of God, you do not thereby prove the existence of God. Neither can you look back at historical texts and prove the existence of God; such texts only tell us what was believed at the time. If you want to provide credible scientific evidence for the existence of God today, you have to use the scientific method. Asking people’s opinion is of no help whatsoever.
Are you able to propose a way of using the scientific method to determine whether there is credible evidence of his existence? And I don’t mean credible evidence of people’s belief in him. Bear in mind that there are alternative beliefs about Jesus eg by Muslims, and those beliefs are no less meaningful and influential to them as they are to you.

I don’t believe it is possible to use science or any other method to prove or provide evidence of God. In the end all you show is belief.

In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.

We all appreciate the strength of your belief and what it means to you and how much you want to share that belief. However, this is not the best forum to to share that belief, because as you say you can end up evangelising. You may be surprised to hear that you have been given more leeway than most, please don’t abuse it.

By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently.

Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question. It is not harassment to ask for evidence of your statements.

please stop harassing me.

Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.

No, he doesn't take their belief as proof of anything. He recognizes the profound changes in their lives as a result of encountering a risen savior.

[duffyd (OP)]

Many attack me, my opinions, in aggressively hostile ways including you, colin. Nothing's been done. Not a word. Explain that if you'd like to.

[alancalverd]

the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.

More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead.  Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

[duffyd (OP)]

No one appreciates how strong my beliefs are. They can't stand my beliefs. Just look at the non-stop hostility. Come on. Don't call it appreciation. It is just the opposite. I have wanted to show how there are scientifically valid reasons for what I believe. What I believe doesn't amount to a warm glass of spit w/o evidence.
The testimony of millions of people has scientific value. It is not proof. It is verifiable evidence because it is repeatable. I don't say that based on what they say they believe alone. It has evidentiary value because of the profound changes that are universally experienced and borne out in the lives of these people. Just like there are measurable brain changes in the newly-fallen-in-love, born from above Christians show the same increases in neurotransmitters. Not proof, but evidentiary evidence that something real has happened in their lives. I pointed these things out. They are dismissed with comments like if Christ was real, everyone would have those kinds of things happen to them.  Not at all. People prayed to receive him. People took/take active steps to encounter him. He doesn't force himself on anyone. Hundreds of millions of people asked him, sought him, knocked and kept on pursuing a relationship with him and they found him. Yet, if I try to make that understood, I'm suddenly preaching and evangelizing and having comments removed. So, I tried to present my dilemma to the wider body of participants. And, I'm told I'm on thin ice. I'm told I'm inferior, too limited intellectually to make sound decisions, to engage in intelligent conversation and I don't respond to others and I don't provide evidence. I am bombarded with nasty accusations and silly, infantile objections to the evidence I am allowed to squeak in among the insults. I purposely ignore some of the ridiculous feedback because it is being used as bait. Look at the comments. Just read what bc, alan, jeffreyh, polygasoline and you and others have said and still are saying. I'm not a pig. I'm not mentally defective-- unless you ask my wife. The nastiness, the childishness, they are against the rules and that is a problem for N.S.

Is Bart Ehrman's testimony worthless because he believed something. Of course not. He experienced real changes and others could see those changes and he was amazed by those changes and milions upon millions have experienced the same changes and others have seen those changes. His falling away is his choice. That doesn't discredit the relationship he once enjoyed with his "best friend" his "hero" who filled him with "love".

[puppypower]

One way to address proof of God

After this opening line there were several paragraphs, but there was no proof of God, or even any supporting evidence of God.  All that was said is basically if there is a God and spirit, then maybe it works something like this.... 

Still looking for evidence.

I agree. I was helping to establish the experimental protocol so other scientists could run their own verifying experiments. If you wanted to photograph a rare species of animal, to prove it exists, you need to set up your photographic tools in the appropriate habitat. You cannot expect that rare animal to call you on the phone and meet you in a lab. Atheist do not appear to know enough about the God phenomena. They run the wrong experimental protocol and then blame God for not calling on the phone.

Like with rare animals, you will need to go to where the phenomena lives. so you can maximize the chance your paths will cross.  I tried to establish logic and the protocol that says that the proper habitat for any valid God experiments, will need to be within the speed of light reference in which it dwells. I was a development engineer. I was good at knowing how to run the right experiments and avoid experimental conditions that will fail. This is the key to innovation.

The speed of light reference appears to be misunderstood. Energy moves at the speed of light, but basic observations tell us that photons are not exclusively in the speed of light reference. This can be inferred from the observation that photons can express both variable and finite frequency and wavelength. Finite and distinct expressions are connected to inertial.

In other words if you use the time and distance equations of SR, and plug in c, all increments of  time and distance; frequency and wavelength, should become infinite and discontinuous. The Lorenz transform becomes discontinuous no matter what length/wavelength or time/frequency you use. All photons should become homogeneous and discontinuous at c. Yet, protons, while moving at c, show distinct and finite quanta in space and time. not predicted by the Lornez transform. This tells me that photons are part inertial, and not exclusively in the speed of light reference. Energy does not meet the full protocol.

Light or photons have two legs, one in inertial reference and the other in the speed of light reference. They act as a bridge between the two realms; matter=inertial and c=spiritual.  The symbolism of Jesus would be more appropriate for energy' spirit becoming flesh. The experimental protocol needed for God sightings, requires a pure c reference. It is not energy based, except at infinite wavelength and zero frequent. Infinite wavelength is as close as our inertial based tools will be able to get. We may need to invent a way to extend our sight beyond this.

We will need to take up our position, at the fence between the end of initial, and the pure c-reference, waiting for a possible God sighting. Since the c-reference is discontinuous in terms of space-time and mass, the impact of a sighting, on our inertial tools, will be indirect. We will not photograph a finite image from a reference that is discontinuous.

At the speed of light reference, since time and distance are discontinuous, entropy will be maximized, since all states are possible, since no state is restricted by finite time, space or mass. The impact of infinite entropy on our tools will be the experimental impact of God. Something strange will happen, but this may be different for each experiment, to reflect the discontinuous nature of the c-reference.

A determinate and repeatable result would be connected to inertial and energy affects, inertial affects from bridge realms. We may pick up signals from other places in the universe due to the space and time discontinuity.

[duffyd (OP)]

More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead.  Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.

Look at their transformations. How do you explain them?

[duffyd (OP)]

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

Hundreds of millions disagree.

[Bored chemist]

Just look at the non-stop hostility.

My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[duffyd (OP)]

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

Hundreds of millions disagree.

If it isn't evidence, what is it?

[duffyd (OP)]

What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God.

How many threads have I started?

Jesus is GOD.

And you still don't acknowledge your own aggressive hostility you and others have used.

[Bored chemist]

And you still don't acknowledge your own aggressive hostility you and others have used.

Lying to people and about people tends to make them hostile.
You don't acknowledge your dishonesty.
Why not?

[Bored chemist]

Jesus is GOD.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Bored chemist]

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

Hundreds of millions disagree.

If it isn't evidence, what is it?

for at least the third time
HEARSAY

[duffyd (OP)]

the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.

More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead.  Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

 Can science prove God exists?
« Reply #841 on: 02/04/2020 01:09:52 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/04/2020 23:31:02
in Mark 8:31 and elsewhere he clearly stated that he was the Son of Man."

Clearly? What else did he say?