Posted on 10/17/2009 4:39:18 PM PDT by Jedediah
A manifold witness I have placed in you ,
All that is faithful and true ,
A oneness of The Father and I in one breath ,
Can you imagine this depth ,
For what once rested upon me ,
Was the one and the three in complete harmony ,
And so it is even now My fullness with you ,
For as you witness me all 3 come through ~ ~ ~
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:6-12 (King James Version)
6But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
1 Corinthians 4:18-21 (New King James Version) 18 Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power. 21 What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?
OH, . . . .
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTT
the analogy is “inapplicable”
because ..............................
drum roll . . . it’s so accurate regarding level of evidence and testimony
and soooooooooooooooooo inconvenient in terms of the truth.
sooooooooooooooooooo impressive.
I gather you were never very good at researching libraries.
Interesting.
Wellllllllllllllll, this librarian has no interest in helping you. I’ve given enough blood to your claws, thank you very much.
The mere claims that Fatima did NOT have anything to do with a UFO
are far more ephemeral
and worthless by several orders of magnitude than even the top 30% of the evidence I report from.
Yet you swallow it hook line and sinker.
Your “lofty” engineer’s and ‘scientific’ perspective . . . already shown to be of negligible value . . .
somehow don’t rise up and question Fatima’s details at all.
Suchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
“CHRISTIAN” “INTEGRITY”
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IMPRESSIVE!
What a pile of stinking dog barf.
. . . .
And therefore??????????????????
your fantasized attachment of sham importance to this arises out of what silly notions?
I have no scorn for Christians; I do have scorn for those who have pet beliefs and sneer at everyone else who doesn’t immediately adopt them.
########################
Then you must scorn most intensely the cliques of rabid Vatican/RC agents hereon who are most rigid, !!!!TRADITIONAL!!!! !!!!CONTROLLING!!!!! haughty, narrow, self-righteous . . . and petty in their intense demonstrations of such tendencies . . .
Oh, right . . . your cohorts . . . how silly of me
####################
My own little theories? What might those be?
Sorry for the insult, it was undeserved.
I was tired and cranky...so I guess is was really my bedtime and not yours.
How can we ever know how much of what Quix says is true, how much is disinformation, or how much is just inaccurate for whatever reason. I suspect that the real answer is bigger than our puny minds can handle. People argue all the time about who is right and what is right... and it doesn’t matter because we are not the ones who have any control over any of this stuff. It is interesting to hear all sides and let people have their opinions. The true answer may be “all of the above is true” in different situations. Given that we are in a multidimensional universe, and most people can only interact with the 3-D, isn’t it rather arrogant of ANYONE to think they know it all? Yes I believe there are UFOs, YES I think some are extraterrestrial - but not all of them. And yes, I think there are big things happening in other dimensions that are affecting this one. I think it is a mistake to turn off the dialog and free exchange of ideas.
Been there, done that. Very very rarely big enough to say so.
I much appreciate that you are.
thank you.
Ok then. Apology not proffered or accepted.
You post indicates you think scientific proof is not empirical and not objective, but subjective or relative.
If so could you supply a link or support for this contention?
VERY WELL PUT.
THX.
The points I’ve made and SonOfDarkSkies has made
about all that
have all been understood and accepted as basic fact at all the universities I’ve taught at or studied at the last 50 years.
Yes there are studies and papers on those points documenting them in boring detail.
I know all that. I don’t NEED more information on all that.
I learned that DECADES AGO.
You seem to be the one outside the loop. Research it yourself, unless SonOfDarkSkies is willing to help you out.
#######################
Actually, I think you know the truth of it, too . . . if you are a college graduate. It gets mentioned.
Usually, though folks glide by it because it’s such an
INCONVENIENT TRUTH
to the whole cause of science. So they don’t usually dwell on it much. But they do mention it and then rush right along.
LOL.
“Just” the
quantum physics stuff ALONE yields that result.
But there are other factors resulting in the same thing.
The bottom line is one has to talk about
relative DEGREES of objectivity/subjectivity etc.
But that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
One your side rightly would do well to avoid.
Thank you so much for your encouragement, dear brother in Christ!
I think you are erroneously conflating what is proved with how it is proved.
You could look at the major proofs by Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, et al... There is of course a difference between hypothesis and proof. Schrodinger’s cat for example is a thought experiment. Proof of its conclusions requires objective and empirical evidence, repeatable experiments, falsification, etc. The same for wave/particle theories and so on for other scientific hypotheses in quantum physics the same as other physics.
Quantum physics is not used as an excuse to abandon the scientific method.
To support your position, you’d need to show scientific proof of in quantum mechanics that is not empirical and not objective, but subjective or relative.
If you have that, please provide.
Yes and no.
Pretending that words mean something one minute
and then jumping tracks and insisting they don’t mean anything the next
is also
NOT the scientific method.
The subjective/objective issue is well documented.
Of course, the high priests of science are not about to even hint that anything about the scientific medhod even needs adjustment, much less lain aside.
LOL.
I’m basically saying that there’s no thorough justification for saying any longer that ANYTHING can be thoroughly definitively, exhaustively objective.
You seem to be saying either that it can be or it’s not important to the scientific method.
The last I would disagree with.
Nevertheless, after all the proofs and postulations . . . the bottom line would still be as I’ve noted before . . .
we would be left haggling over the
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF
RELATIVE DEGREES OF SUBJECTIVITY.
I find that more than relatively humorous.
Yes, it could all be a dream. I referred earlier the myth of the given; this is not new or quantum.
However, inn order to explore our universe, seek truth and converse about our findings requires that we trust our senses. If we cannot, then we have no basis to discuss “truth” at all.
If, however, you are talking about local realist theory and Bell’s theorem On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, which I think is the closest thing in quantum to what you are trying to use, its proof is subject to the scientific method of repeatable experimental, objective, empirical results.
Passing these requirements is still a requirement of scientific proof.
In short, one cannot use quantum physics to justify a statement such as: “What I think is true is scientifically proven to be true.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.