9inches:
@bolded,
That's exactly something I will say YOU cannot replicate or verify.

I would if I had the inclination and equipment to do so. That is more than can be said for any faith position.

9inches:
@bolded
Right, because he is not an engineer. Formal training or certification would make him an engineer regardless if he is tinkering in his garage or in a Boeing hangar.
"Amateurs are not generally considered when talking about any endeavour" but you just did them a great service by considering them.

Did you miss a class of their own?

LordReed:
I would if I had the inclination and equipment to do so.

You haven't done so yourself yet you believe the scientists like I do?

That is more than can be said for any faith position.

Errrm, you forgot this:

9inches:
This last kind of knowledge (D) is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith.

9inches:

You haven't done so yourself yet you believe the scientists like I do?

Errrm, you forgot this:

It still doesnt make it a faith position. There is evidence, rigorously tested again and and again and with several methods for verification. You don't have that so quit trying to equate the two.

LordReed:


Did you miss a class of their own?

Irrelevant if he's not an engineer.

9inches:
Irrelevant if he's not an engineer.

If he can verify a result it is not. Meanwhile produce anything about your god that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rhPa7h4ro

LordReed:
Meanwhile produce anything about your god that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

Wrong! If he is not certified for such, his 'verification' is without credibility and useless.

9inches:
Wrong! If he is not certified for such, his 'verification' is without credibility and useless.

Correction, his verification will be classed under the data produced from amateurs and will not be grouped with those from professionals.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for you to produce anything that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

LordReed:
Meanwhile produce anything about your god that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

Anything like what? What kind of evidence or theory are you looking for?

9inches:
Anything like what? What kind of evidence or theory are you looking for?

Define your god and I'll think of some.

9inches:
Describe those occurences/events.

Summary: The components of Nature-The Description of 'The Form of Existence' which encompasses all the properties of a planetary system-acted upon the actualization of 'The Possibility of Man' in the 'Forming of Existence'.
So,Man occurred after the other components of Nature had occurred.
The Existential Constant keeps 'The Forming of Existence' in Actuality.
The actualization of possibilities takes place at ANYTIME in 'The Forming of Existence'.
When a possibility(something to be characterized) becomes Existent/Actualized,it means the Functional Consequences of the Existential Constant have resulted in an EFFECT.
This EFFECT is acted upon by other 'Forms of Existence' in 'The Forming of Existence' .
Just like the Existential Constant, 'The Forms of Existence' cannot be determined by time.
They have always been as 'FORMS' and they will always be.
They can't be singularized.
The 'Line of Action' doesn't have a beginning or an end.
In-Existence is impossible.
'The Forms of Existence' act upon themselves.

LordReed:


Correction, his verification will be classed under the data produced from amateurs and will not be grouped with those from professionals.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for you to produce anything that can be verified by a nonbeliever.

He is still without credibility as long as he is not certified for such.

9inches:
He is still without credibility as long as he is not certified for such.

Stop grasping at straws. Either you provide a definition of your god or evidence of it that unbelievers can verify.

LordReed:


Define your god and I'll think of some.

Here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

HellVictorinho:
The components of Nature-The Description of 'The Form of Existence' acted upon the actualization of 'The Possibility of Man' in the 'Forming of Existence'.

And those components of Nature being what?

LordReed:


Stop grasping at straws. Either you provide a definition of your god or evidence of it that unbelievers can verify.

Clever way to bow out of a line of argument you lost a couple of posts ago. You got tired of throwing stuff out there to see what will stick, don't you? Grasping at straws, that's what you've been doing

Now we can focus on the God question.

9inches:
Here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

Sorry not watching that. Are you going to define your god or provide evidence any unbeliever can verify?

9inches:
Clever way to bow out of a line of argument you lost a couple of posts ago. You got tired of throwing stuff out there to see what will stick, don't you? Grasping at straws, that's what you've been doing

Now we can focus on the God question.

You were the one making a mountain out of a molehill as though you don't know what a amateur is.

LordReed:


Sorry not watching that. Are you going to define your god or provide evidence any unbeliever can verify?

The definition and evidence you need is in the video. Done my bit, over to you. If data is your problem, I could transcribe for you when I'm less busy, sorry.

LordReed:


You were the one making a mountain out of a molehill as though you don't know what a amateur is.

Well, I don't see it as a mountain out of a molehill, but rather a lie that you were trying to smuggle into the argument and got caught red handed.

9inches:
Well, I don't see it as a mountain out of a molehill, but rather a lie that you were trying to smuggle into the argument and got caught red handed.

What lie? That amateurs can confirm scientific results? Just admit you are ignorant and dishonest and save us the trouble.

This is where you fairytale believers always like to go, become pedantically dishonest while quibbling over inconsequential bits, just so you can avoid the substance.

Scientific facts will never be equal to faith and your faith has no substance backing it.

9inches:
The definition and evidence you need is in the video. Done my bit, over to you. If data is your problem, I could transcribe for you when I'm less busy, sorry.

You do that.

LordReed:


What lie? That amateurs can confirm scientific results?

Yes, as long as you are not certified to do so. How painful is it that you will never be able to walk or take back your incoherent argument as I have quoted all of them?

9inches:
Yes, as long as you are not certified to do so. How painful is it that you will never be able to walk or take back your incoherent argument as I have quoted all of them?

LoL! You people like making arguments nobody was making. Be as obtuse as you want, that's your business.

9inches:

And those components of Nature being what?

The Chemical Properties, The Biological Systems and the Physical Quantities.

HellVictorinho:

The Chemical Properties, The Biological Systems and the Physical Quantities.

From were did they emanate?

9inches:
From were did they emanate?

They didn't emanate from any specific thing.
They actually occurred.

HellVictorinho:

They didn't emanate from any specific thing.
They actually occurred.

Please explain how they came to be/occur.

LordReed:


You do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

How do we know there's a God? Why do we believe in God at all?
That's the foundation for the whole spiritual life. The great theologians and spiritual teachers have used different approaches to this question over the centuries. One of my favorites is the approach that begins with desire. We human beings desire the truth. Our minds seek the truth and we get it sometimes. But no matter how much truth we get out of this world, it's never enough; the mind remains unsatisfied. We seek the good and find it a lot of ways in this world, but no matter how many goods we attain, we’re never really satisfied. We seek justice in all kinds of ways and we achieve it sometimes to a remarkable degree. Think of in our own time, civil rights movement, the end to apartheid, the breakdown of the Soviet Union… all those were wonderful things that were attainment of justice but no matter how much justice we attain, we never have enough.

There's something in us - this desire for the good, the true, the just, that pushes us beyond this world. This approach is called the argument from desire. You can't desire what you don't know. Therefore, if we are desiring something that transcends anything in this world, in some way, we must already know it. Therefore, we do know the truth itself; we do know the good itself; we do know justice itself… and that's who God is!

God is not one of the true things in the world, but God is the truth itself which has seized the mind of any scientist, any philosopher, any seeker after the truth.

God is not one more good thing in the world, but God is goodness itself which has seized anybody when he's living the moral life or seeking the ethically good.

God is not one more just thing in the world, but God is justice itself which has seized the will of the lawyer or the judge or anyone seeking justice.

The Bible talks about the primacy of God. When you're seeking God, the most important to realize is you've already been found by God. Remember the Russian cosmonauts who went up into space and they kind of sarcastically radioed back to earth “well, we're up in the heavens and we haven't found God.” Of course, any biblical person would know he'll never find God that way. Of course not, you don't find God anywhere in the cosmos he's made, but God is the creative source of all that exists in the cosmos. So that's one approach to God beginning with our own deep desire.

Here's a second approach and it comes from Pope [Benedict XVI] who wrote a great book in 1968 called introduction to Christianity. In that book, he formulates this argument and what I like about it is it shows the link between religion and science because very often those two are seen as enemies. He says “no, at their depth, religion and science come together.” Here's why: what does every scientist assume? Whether you're a physicist, a chemist, biologist, psychologist… whatever you are, you assume that ‘being’ is intelligible. That means that the world can be known. Even the name ‘psychology’ designates ‘logos’ (word). The scientist goes out to meet a world that's imbued with meaning.

Well how do you explain that? How do you explain the universality of the meaningfulness of the world? Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) said it's because it has been thought into being. In other words, the world is not just dumbly there. Rather, the world is filled with ‘logos’; it's filled with reason, which is why when we understand the truth, we say we “re”-cognize” it. He says, “right, you ‘re’-cognize it” (you think it again) because it's already been thought into being by God... So, he argues from the objective intelligibility of the world to the existence of a great intelligence which has thought the world into being.

Here's a third approach the philosophers and theologians have used. it's called the argument from contingency. It's a fancy way of saying that the world as we know it exists but doesn't have to exist. You and I are here but we don't have to be here; there's nothing necessary about our being. It's true the world as we know it is fleeting (it's passing). Therefore, we have to go outside the world to God. God who does exist through himself and who therefore grounds and creates the whole of the world that we know.

Relatedly, Dorothy Day, when she was in the process of coming to the church (she was going through a process of conversion), she had a child. And one day when she was on the porch of her house and she was holding her child, she said, “I felt a gratitude that was so enormous that I knew it would correspond to nothing in this world.” There was nothing/nobody in this world she could possibly thank that would correspond to the gratitude she was feeling. That's it! that's exactly it! What she was sensing was “....this world... myself... my child… none of it has to be here, yet it's here.” And the proper response is “thank you to the person who made them.”

9inches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

How do we know there's a God? why do we believe in God at all? That's the foundation for the whole spiritual life. The great theologians and spiritual teachers have used different approaches to this question over the centuries. one of my favorites is the approach that begins with desire. We human beings desire the truth. Our minds seek the truth and we get it sometimes. But no matter how much truth we get out of this world, it's never enough; the mind remains unsatisfied. We seek the good and find it a lot of ways in this world, but no matter how many goods we attain, we’re never really satisfied. We seek justice in all kinds of ways and we achieve it sometimes to a remarkable degree. Think of in our own time, civil rights movement, the end to apartheid, the breakdown of the Soviet Union… all those were wonderful things that were attainment of justice but no matter how much justice we attain, we never have enough.

There's something in us - this desire for the good, the true, the just, that pushes us beyond this world. This approach is called the argument from desire. You can't desire what you don't know. Therefore, if we're desiring something that transcends anything in this world in some way we must already know it. Therefore, we do know the truth itself; we do know the good itself; we do know justice itself… and that's who God is.
God is not one of the true things in the world, but God is the truth itself which has seized the mind of any scientist, any philosopher, any seeker after the truth. God is not one more good thing in the world, but God is goodness itself which has seized anybody when he's living the moral life or seeking the ethically good. God is not one more just thing in the world, but God is justice itself which has seized the will of the lawyer or the judge or anyone seeking justice.

The Bible talks about the primacy of God. When you're seeking God. the most important to realize is
you've already been found by God. Remember the Russian cosmonauts who went up into space and they kind of sarcastically radioed back to earth “well, we're up in the heavens and we haven't found God.” Of course, any biblical person would know he'll never find God that way. Of course not, you don't find God anywhere in the cosmos he's made, but God is the creative source of all that exists in the cosmos. So that's one approach to God beginning with our own deep desire.

Here's a second approach and it comes from Pope [Benedict XVI] who wrote a great book in 1968 called introduction to Christianity. In that book, he formulates this argument and what I like about it is it shows the link between religion and science because very often those two are seen as enemies. He says “no, at their depth, religion and science come together.” Here's why: what does every scientist assume? Whether you're a physicist, a chemist, biologist, psychologist… whatever you are, you assume that ‘being’ is intelligible. That means that the world can be known. Even the name ‘psychology’ designates
‘logos’ (word). The scientist goes out to meet a world that's imbued with meaning.

Well how do you explain that? How do you explain the universality of the meaningfulness of the world? Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) said it's because it's been thought into being. In other words, the world is not
just dumbly there. Rather, the world is filled with ‘logos’; it's filled with reason, which is why when we
understand the truth we say we “re”-cognize” it. He says, “right, you ‘re’-cognize it” (you think it again) because it's already been thought into being by God... So, he argues from the objective intelligibility of the world to the existence of a great intelligence which has thought the world into being.

Here's a third approach the philosophers and theologians have used. it's called the argument from contingency. It's a fancy way of saying that the world as we know it exists but doesn't have to exist. You and I are here but we don't have to be here; there's nothing necessary about our being. It's true the world as we know it is fleeting (it's passing). Therefore, we have to go outside the world to God. God who does exist through himself and who therefore grounds and creates the whole of the world that we know.

Relatedly, Dorothy Day, when she was in the process of coming to the church (she was going through a process of conversion), she had a child. And one day when she was on the porch of her house and she was holding her child, she said, “I felt a gratitude that was so enormous that I knew it would correspond to nothing in this world.” There was nothing/nobody in this world she could possibly thank that would correspond to the gratitude she was feeling. That's it! that's exactly it! What she was sensing was “God! this world, myself, my child… none of it has to be here, yet it's here.” And the proper response is “thank you to the person who made them.”

So feelings is your evidence of god?

9inches:
Please explain how they came to be/occur.

Existential Constant=Forming of Existence=Actualization of Solar System=Characterization of Solar System=Occurrence of Chemical Properties, Biological Systems, Physical Quantities=Nature.