Testament- the responsibility of evidence part 111

Supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The spirit of these discusions can be subjective

I have never considered that arranging words on a screen could prove or disprove anything.

Testamony is very useful when truth is involved

There is very little doubt in my mind that there are lies in religion and politics

By the rules of this forum I may testify to reason as long as it does not rhyme

Main Entry Religion

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
I see myself leaning toward a liberal point of view though I see pros and cons to everything

Do testaments prove or disprove theory?

What a weird way you have of asking a simple questions Mikey.

I'll say very simply.

A testament proves nothing but the belief of the person making claims. I could testify that the moon is made of cheese, and I could even totally believe it if I'd been lied too my whole life about it.

Evidence and testing proves testaments to be true, not the testaments themselves.

Friday I went to see an old friend that was given a prognosis by one doctor that he had fifteeen months to live. He had no hair but was more cheerful than he was the last time I saw him

When I ask him what his prognosis was he told me a second doctor told him that the first doctor could not and should not tell him when he was going to die. "God only knows" Which doctor is telling the truth, the one offering hope, or the one offering death?

The future that does not exist, or connot be percieved by the five senses, is often visible in the spirit.

From Wikipedia:
"A chemical imbalance is sometimes thought to be the cause of mental illness. The term is used in consumer literature and websites for psychoactive drugs, and in advertising in the United States after the deregulation of pharmaceutical advertising. It is not used in scientific literature as it does not reflect current knowledge."

From Dr. Julian Whitaker, author and founder of the highly respected Whitaker Wellness Center in California:
"There's no pathology. There's no blood test. There's no lab test. There's no x-ray. Psychiatrists list out and vote on clusters of behavior and call them a disease. They are giving drugs to millions of people who do not have a defined medical problem."
Yes, Emily, the theological virtues are easily tested Yet I do agree with Kevin on this point
"It's still possible to talk about germ theory, or genetic theory, even though those things are beyond doubt real, and effecting. The reason science calls evolution a "theory" is because there is still work to do there. It's not the same thing as a person, trying to solve a puzzle just coming up with their best guess and calling it a theory"

The problem with
Pantheism, the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical,[1] or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. Is that focuses on the objective where the answer is subjective The word derives from the Ancient Greek: (pan) meaning "all" and¸ (theos) meaning "belief that God is all". As such Pantheism promotes the idea that "God" is better understood as a way of relating reverentially to Nature and the Universe. Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the "sacredness" of Nature

There is an old testament, a new testament and many last will and testaments that attest to the sacredness of human choices

"I've not seen a shred of evidence, not even a hint, except of course that alot of people clearly believe in something, and I very much doubt they are all lying to themselves."
Evidence?
1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony?

Since you admited your doubt that many are lying to themsellves, I will in turn admit that many religions do not reflect theolgical virtues

It's important to remember, that religious claims about how our world works aren't just personal opinions, no one thinks of them as "theories" requiring evidence if they are believers.

I can disagree with someone about their political ideas, and yet I don't think they are believing in something totally made up. I can argue with an education official about their beliefs on school punishments and security, and disagree totally, and yet still feel and know they are drawing their opinions and evidence from the same set of real life rules and limitations I'm taking my viewpoint from.

I cannot say the same for religious people. There is a gap which they create by inviting into their understanding of the world made up rules and ideas that just aren't part of any serious reality.

It would be like an alchemist trying to debate professor of chemistry, or a flat earther trying to debate a geologist.

Anyone who believes in God is off the artistic rolecall in terms of serious debates about reality and human evolution, because by the very nature of your faith you are admitting you prefer to believe in utter fable over serious evidence.

Because the element mercury is named after a mythical creature that could explian why many do not take global warming seriously. May be it is not because of the propaganda that it is the creation of a Nobel prize winner. Politicians teach us that we can pick and choose the evidence we wish to accept, and only answer questions we want to. The man from Tennessee could not have invented global warming though the few conservatives that believe the evidence of climate change is real deny that it could ever be manmade." It's important to remember, that religious claims about how our world works aren't just personal opinions, no one thinks of them as "theories" requiring evidence if they are believers." People that believe mercury rises today are not necessarily myth makers
The Flat Earth Society (also known as the International Flat Earth Society or the International Flat Earth Research Society) is an organization that seeks to further the discredited belief that the Earth is flat rather than a sphere or a geoid Aim: To carefully observe, think freely, rediscover forgotten fact and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions. To help establish the United States...of the world on this flat earth. Replace the science religion...with SANITY. Sanity outside of legal definitions has been little explored by science and medicine, as the concentration has been on illness.
Have you ever googled Chemical balance through spirituality?

Yeah...no.

The way you are writing in this thread Micheal is off the charts weird, not to mention you dont' score points for BLOCKOTEXT.

I don't really see any point in debating you, cause you don't seem to be on the same planet as me bro, not even close and I could offer all the reasoning I possess and you'd still prattle on about chemical balance, S.H.I.T (your mockery of evolution theory) and some woman you used to know.

Get real francis.

Sounds like Bush's 2003 Mission Accomplished Speech

Thank you for the time you did spend trying to understand my depth. BLOCKOTEXT is not even in the urban dictionary, so you are far more advance than most of us. Even if I believed that evolution was totally random the language of creation does not have to be over our heads in the heliocentric theory in which our sun is just one of many stars and God is our personal Creator

who is francis?

Francis Chan-Getting Real Thanks for turning us on to that

See what happens when you start a 3 part thread Mikey? People just don't get it.

Leave it to the ho'fessionals, like me.

Well it's like this. Most of us get what is coming to us. We seem to have the ability to accept or reject our nature. The darkness is natural, yet who can live without the light?

It at times seems more possible to escape eternity than the natural reward and punishment system inherent to our world.

Inherit
As a further related definition, it can also mean in a more general sense to derive a characteristic from people, groups or objects which were influential at some time in the past, even if such people/groups/objects are not "ancestral" to those who receive the characteristic

"Leave it to the ho'fessionals, like me."
I am sure that in the pros and cons of fessionals I am more of a ho

I'm going to start a new thread about this Micheal, and you are not invited.

*takes his ball and goes home*

: )

"I don't really see any point in debating you, cause you don't seem to be on the same planet as me bro, not even close and I could offer all the reasoning I possess and you'd still prattle on about chemical balance, S.H.I.T (your mockery of evolution theory)"

Our existence as we know it depends on systems. You can imagine natural life existing without a solar system but that has nothing to do with reality. There are many solar systems in the universe but it makes sense to believe that because there are so many that would not support life as we know it. It would not be absurd to give credit to environment for life forms but we can safely assume that the laws of nature had no beginning and will have no end. It is a common error in this era to mistake the observation of natural phenomenon which is at least one definition of science for the proverbial supernatural being of creation or Creator

Objectively it is possible to imagine many probabilities in explaining origins
Origin of a feces thesis
That quote inspires me to do some stinking thinking. Let's suppose that my greatest grandfather was born in a mass of primordial "Substances High In Transmutations" or SHIT . Please pardon this acronym. Let me explain I am not saying that my greatest grandfather began in a pile of shit. I am saying that life came from "Substances High In Transmutations" or SHIT at least from a purely scientific theory
Now let's theorize that in order to be SHIT, you have to take SHIT. [Organic matter consumes organic matter}
This presents a problem in the law of opposites though, and philosophers have pondered this mystery to determine who gives a SHIT. Because Substances High In Transmutations can be broken down to a simpler DNA, which I understand is a the substance of life. Some people believe that SHIT just happens, but others say they don't know SHIT, because in order to know all about SHIT you have to be SHIT for a long time. Some folks feel like SHIT, but most people spend their whole life trying to get their SHIT together. If one can find the synthesis where opposites meet and merge that would be where all this SHIT began. The paradox is that if I am more full of SHIT than my greatest grandfather was, then there would seem to be some "Good Orderly Direction" involved, but if I say that GOD created SHIT I am going to get burned as bad as Giordano Bruno did from one side, and the other side will say that I am really full of Papal Bull SHIT.

Oh well I can always work on a theory explaining why every thing in the universe is getting farther apart
Well let's see, there is more room out than there is in. and they have almost proven there was a big bang
Let's see what about the cosmic Farther Apart Reaction Theory, or cosmic FART
.Damn it!!!

Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed just because you can dilute it or flush it....it is not gone
The truth always comes out. "The end"

PS I am not an atheist, but I am not against free thinking

When we all think alike heaven, and earth will unite

You know alot about SHIT micheal, clearly enough to talk it 24/7.

Michael, you need some new material.

So bored.

It's still nice to know some remember to old substance high in transmutation

I wasn't amused. That's why I said I was bored. I am hardly ever bored, so that's saying something.

Mike is usually very amusing actually. I like him.

I like you too. There are a few left that have a soul