Can any creationist tell me ...

[dad1]

The problem here is that no one has provided a definition, a useful description, of either a real spirit or a real god, such that if we found a candidate, we could determine that it was indeed a spirit or indeed a god.

Spirits are beings that inhabit bodies that are in another dimension or realm than the physical only one we dwell in. They are actual real persons and intelligent beings as we are. Science only deals in the physical or natural realm. Spirits are necessarily out of their jurisdiction and scope. The spiritual also has laws that govern it, as we have laws that given our realm.
The effects of spirits are somewhat like the effects of the dark matter science claims. They can't see the so called dark stuff but know it is there (they think) BY it's effects on what we can see! Spirits good and bad have affected mankind since day one. The effects have been observed and felt.

And while we're about definitions, how do you define 'true'? 'real'? 'subjective'?

Should we really need to define real? In the context of science, real has to do with what is known. Example, we know how to mix certain chemicals. The result will be real. When science blabs on about a first lifeform, or the big bang, that is not real. That is insanely extended conjecture partly based on limited truths.

 

[blü 2]

Spirits are beings that inhabit bodies that are in another dimension or realm than the physical only one we dwell in.

What other dimension, specifically? What is its relation to the four dimensions of spacetime? How do you know?

They are actual real persons and intelligent beings as we are.

That's not a correct statement about reality.

Science only deals in the physical or natural realm. Spirits are necessarily out of their jurisdiction and scope. The spiritual also has laws that govern it, as we have laws that given our realm.

We determine the rules of physics by observation, hypothesis, experiment, checking, rechecking, and open and honest debate. The results are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. A hardnosed, fully reasoned, process with maximized objectivity.

By what method do you determine the rules of this spirit world? Give me an example of the process.

Should we really need to define real?

When I use a word, I like to be clear on what it means so I can keep track of what I'm saying, hence give my hearer a chance to do so too. If you have a different view, then you may not need a definition for anything.

When science blabs on about a first lifeform, or the big bang, that is not real. That is insanely extended conjecture partly based on limited truths.

Oh, there was a first (successful) lifeform. All life on earth so far appears to be descended from a single prototype. That's why we're all here.

And if you want to say there was no Big Bang, then you need to mount your argument in terms of the data cosmologists have collected that persuade them to that view, and specify and demonstrate their errors. Go for it!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Spirits are beings that inhabit bodies that are in another dimension or realm than the physical only one we dwell in. They are actual real persons and intelligent beings as we are. Science only deals in the physical or natural realm. Spirits are necessarily out of their jurisdiction and scope. The spiritual also has laws that govern it, as we have laws that given our realm.
The effects of spirits are somewhat like the effects of the dark matter science claims. They can't see the so called dark stuff but know it is there (they think) BY it's effects on what we can see! Spirits good and bad have affected mankind since day one. The effects have been observed and felt.

Should we really need to define real? In the context of science, real has to do with what is known. Example, we know how to mix certain chemicals. The result will be real. When science blabs on about a first lifeform, or the big bang, that is not real. That is insanely extended conjecture partly based on limited truths.

ha true, people practicing science are usually not 'scientists', they are engineers, e.g. chemical, mechanical, they live and die by what is real, what actually works, not by how intellectually titillating an ideological concept is!

 

[blü 2]

ha true, people practicing science are usually not 'scientists', they are engineers, e.g. chemical, mechanical, they live and die by what is real, what actually works, not by how intellectually titillating an ideological concept is!

The smart ones, however, keep up with the intellectual side.

Whereas I can name some forms of Christianity that don't have an intellectual side at all.

 

[dad1]

What other dimension, specifically? What is its relation to the four dimensions of spacetime? How do you know?

I know because of the effects spirits have had in man's experience on earth. Spacetime is not a dimension. Spacetime is an attempt to define the physical dimension, or part of it, by science. The spiritual is not a part of this current dimension directly. I suspect that in the former nature, it was, at least to a far greater extent.

That's not a correct statement about reality.

We determine the rules of physics by observation, hypothesis, experiment, checking, rechecking, and open and honest debate. The results are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. A hardnosed, fully reasoned, process with maximized objectivity.

Your powers of observation are very limited. For example to this time and space. Hypothesis is of no value unless based on solid realities. Experiment does not apply, have you tested the far past nature, or time in deep space lately? Even if you could determine the rules of physics that does not apply to the origins issues unless you show physics existed then the same.

By what method do you determine the rules of this spirit world? Give me an example of the process.

Who said man could determine that now? When you go to be with your fathers, then you will learn.

Oh, there was a first (successful) lifeform. All life on earth so far appears to be descended from a single prototype. That's why we're all here.

Foolish and baseless story.

And if you want to say there was no Big Bang, then you need to mount your argument in terms of the data cosmologists have collected that persuade them to that view, and specify and demonstrate their errors. Go for it!

Very easy to do. We can start with a simple fact that time needs to exist in all the far universe the same as here or no distances/mass/ star sizes...etc etc can be known. It cannot be known how much time light took to get to the solar system and area here either.

Since all you and science know is that time and space as we know it does exist here, all you can know about light is how long it takes to move here. ALL the steps to the big bang are destroyed.

 

[dad1]

ha true, people practicing science are usually not 'scientists', they are engineers, e.g. chemical, mechanical, they live and die by what is real, what actually works, not by how intellectually titillating an ideological concept is!

There are, however many whole fields of 'science' that claim to know about how the universe and life got here. They hide behind the rest of science. Basically they like to thumb the nose at God and say 'nya nya we are science too, and you're the dirty rascal'

 

[blü 2]

I know because of the effects spirits have had in man's experience on earth. Spacetime is not a dimension. Spacetime is an attempt to define the physical dimension, or part of it, by science.

How else would you find out what's true in reality than by using science? Religion can't even agree on how many gods there are.

The spiritual is not a part of this current dimension directly.

It sure sounds imaginary to me. What distinguishes it from an imaginary dimension?

Your powers of observation are very limited. For example to this time and space.

That's both necessary and sufficient.

Hypothesis is of no value unless based on solid realities.

So no testable hypothesis is possible concerning your 'dimension', you're saying?

Experiment does not apply, have you tested the far past nature, or time in deep space lately?

If you follow the science news, you'll know that we have tools to let us determine states of affairs in the past and the distant past, and 'time in deep space' for that matter.

What can you tell science about those things?

Even if you could determine the rules of physics that does not apply to the origins issues unless you show physics existed then the same.

So what. There'd still be no basis for magic in reality.

Since all you and science know is that time and space as we know it does exist here, all you can know about light is how long it takes to move here. ALL the steps to the big bang are destroyed.

So how do you say the universe came into being? By what process, exactly?

 

[dad1]

How else would you find out what's true in reality than by using science? Religion can't even agree on how many gods there are.

If there is more in the universe and world than the physical, that science is of no use in finding it. Therefore what science deems to be reality is a joke.

It sure sounds imaginary to me. What distinguishes it from an imaginary dimension?

What distinguishes dark matter and energy from an imaginary dimension? The effects are observed. (The effects of what are another question, the dark stuff is a crock, but that is another matter)

So no testable hypothesis is possible concerning your 'dimension', you're saying?

No. I am saying that the testing is above the pay grade of poor little physical only science.

If you follow the science news, you'll know that we have tools to let us determine states of affairs in the past and the distant past, and 'time in deep space' for that matter.

I do. You don't.

What can you tell science about those things?

Science can't even tell us about last week. Put science in it's proper place.

So what. There'd still be no basis for magic in reality.

Magic is just the spiritual added to your physical only temporal little reality! It may be a bad word to the narrow minded confined realm of so called science, but who really cares?

So how do you say the universe came into being? By what process, exactly?

Science doesn't know. You feel a need to make things up to be thought clever?

 

[blü 2]

If there is more in the universe and world than the physical, that science is of no use in finding it.

But "there is more" is exactly what you've failed to show. The cupboard couldn't be barer.

Therefore what science deems to be reality is a joke.

Not until you come up with some satisfactory evidence. Imaginings won't cut it.

What distinguishes dark matter and energy from an imaginary dimension?

Dark matter and dark energy are (as I mentioned) names for problems, not names for defined phenomena. But they at least have a defined problem, to explain the extra gravity necessary to generate the form in which we observe galaxies to rotate.

What observed and defined problem of reality do you say you're trying to solve?

No. I am saying that the testing is above the pay grade of poor little physical only science.

But as I said, you've failed and failed to demonstrate that there's anything else but your imagination.

Magic is just the spiritual added to your physical only temporal little reality!

But you can't even define what you mean by 'reality', let alone by 'spiritual'. That is, you're speaking in emotional terms, terms of connotation, and you're not denoting anything real at all.

 

[dad1]

But "there is more" is exactly what you've failed to show. The cupboard couldn't be barer.

Funny most men of all ages realized that there was a spiritual and spirits. We should what, measure all reality by your personal experiences and thinking?

Not until you come up with some satisfactory evidence. Imaginings won't cut it.

There has been more than enough for most people in all of human experience on earth. You cannot draw a little circle and claim that anything that doesn't walk into it is not real!

Dark matter and dark energy are (as I mentioned) names for problems, not names for defined phenomena. But they at least have a defined problem, to explain the extra gravity necessary to generate the form in which we observe galaxies to rotate.

They are invisible. Unknown. They are needed because of things that are affected by something unknown, and the spiritual is also invisible and known by it's effects on the world and people.

What observed and defined problem of reality do you say you're trying to solve?

The world has many well defined problems, many of them cause by science! The problem science disciples have is that they limit how they define all problems oftentimes to things that have nothing to do with the problem!

But you can't even define what you mean by 'reality', let alone by 'spiritual'. That is, you're speaking in emotional terms, terms of connotation, and you're not denoting anything real at all.

If you don't even know what is real what are you doing debating?

 

[blü 2]

Funny most men of all ages realized that there was a spiritual and spirits.

Facts aren't democratic. Everyone used to think the earth was flat and the stars went round it.

We should what, measure all reality by your personal experiences and thinking?

No, but we should learn a bit of science, and get a clear idea of what terms like 'real', 'subjective', 'true', 'falsifiable' mean, and whether 'god', 'spiritual' and 'immaterial' mean anything real, and if so, what, exactly.

They are invisible. Unknown.

Then stop pretending you know them.

If you don't even know what is real what are you doing debating?

Now now. I gave you my definition of 'real'. You're the one who couldn't provide one of your own ─ so what are you doing debating?

 

[dad1]

Facts aren't democratic. Everyone used to think the earth was flat and the stars went round it.

Bingo. So offer something that can stand on it's own.

No, but we should learn a bit of science, and get a clear idea of what terms like 'real', 'subjective', 'true', 'falsifiable' mean, and whether 'god', 'spiritual' and 'immaterial' mean anything real, and if so, what, exactly.

Getting up on cult language and preferred meanings of words is of limited value. Especially when we just saw the colossal fail to support the same state past they base all past models on!

Reality is not a science term or word actually. Any other words they use need to be taken only within the limited context of their handicapped abilities and pay grade. So when you use any terms remember there are bigger, broader, more meaningful juicy meanings than you may have thought.

Now now. I gave you my definition of 'real'. You're the one who couldn't provide one of your own ─ so what are you doing debating?

We should know what is real. I do. Not rocket science, that. Your same nature in the past is only a belief as real as it might seem to you.

 

[blü 2]

Bingo. So offer something that can stand on it's own.

Physician, heal thyself. All your wafty dreaming about spirits &c has no basis in fact, is not a correct statement about reality, at any level.

Getting up on cult language and preferred meanings of words is of limited value.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't think it's important to do so.

Reality is not a science term or word actually.

Not strictly speaking, no. If it has to have a category, it'd be philosophy, the metaphysics department.

Any other words they use need to be taken only within the limited context of their handicapped abilities and pay grade. So when you use any terms remember there are bigger, broader, more meaningful juicy meanings than you may have thought.

If so, you have no idea what they are.

We should know what is real. I do.

Really? What's the test that will tell us whether something is real or not? You already have my answer to that. What's yours?