On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 04:38:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:01:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
OK, let's suppose this is not his goal. But then, why would God first
obscure his existence in order to make a number of people not believe
in him,
To develop faith, of course.
Why is uncritical faith so desirable? To a dictator who wants to
enslave his supporters it is, of course. Is God a dictator?
"verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed,
ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it
shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." -- Matt. 17:20
and then, later, throw the non-believers in hell, to suffer and
scream and anguish, for ever and ever until the end of time?
I don't believe that.
The Bible says so. Don't you believe in the Bible? That would make
you an arrogant apostate who deserves hell...
Nope. That would make me a skeptic that the Bible survived two millenia
without without being changed by uninspired people.
"in every instance in near death experiences of an encounter with the “being of light” in all of the above studies patients reported the experience to be one of intense love."
https://www.magiscenter.com/love-and...h-experiences/
"In 69% of the cases, people who experienced Near Death (NDE) felt that
they were in the presence of an overwhelming love in the company of
family and friends or other mystical bodies."
http://godloveletters.com/near-death-experiences/
Hmmm, I wonder what the other 31% felt. But don't worry Paul, since:
"Interestingly, 75% of people who consider themselves atheists reported
these divine figures."
If you want to read about what it's really like:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.29793228ba55
An all-powerful God could of course do such a thing, but not a God
which is both all-powerful and all-benign...
Are you claiming that God is evil?
YOU are the one who is claiming that.
FYI: something which does not exist cannot be evil. But those who
made up this "God story" certainly weren't all-benign...
You're conflating those who wrote the Bible with those who copied and translated it.
You should be more skeptical of the models because they aren't reality.
Actual measurements are of course preferable. So what does the
measurements say? Do we have a global warming or not? What's your
opinion?
I believe that the earth is getting warmer overall, but it doesn't seem
to be mainly because of CO2 increase. And I worry that we may NEED some
extra CO2 if we head into another Little Ice Age.
So if you think you don't have time for Wikipedia, why do you have
time to hang around here?
It's entertainment. Besides, I learn some new things here. I wouldn't
learn anything by what you suggest.
Wrong! You'll learn more than you realize by actually looking upp
support for your claims.
Wrong! I DO look up support and I receive criticism from you and others.
Who knows, you might even find good reasons for changing your mind.
And I have because of John Savard's point about temperature increase due
to CO2 feedback through water vapor. I had to figure out how to apply
that to modtran.
Only someone who believes himself to be infallible would argue like you.
I never claimed to be infallible. This is just your fantasy.
If it wasn't unreliable, why did even the author himself think the
experiment needed to be repeated? Not just once, but many times...
For scientific acceptability, of course. The point is that it hasn't
been repeated and, therefore, hasn't been refuted.
Likewise, you won't find studies trying to find out if the Earth is flat
or not. Should we therefore conclude that the claim "the Earth is not
flat" is unproved?
This is sophistry, Paul. There ARE such studies every time a satellite
or astronaut takes a photo of the earth from space. This clearly refutes
flat-earth assertion. OTOH, there are no studies that refute MacDougall's
work.
The final numbers are 300.81 K and water vapor scale of 1.07. So
we have a temperature rise of 1.11 K for a doubling of CO2 levels.
From empirical data we've had a temperature rise of close to one degree
compared to preindustrisl levels,
Actually, reliable data from 1882 to 2015 shows temperature rise was -0.41
in 1882 to +0.98 K in 2015 (with 0 being the reference around 1950 to 1970,
or thereabouts). I don't know what you want to call "preindustrial" but
it looks more like 1.4 K to me.
despite that we haven't yet had any doubling of CO2 levels but merely an
increase of less than 50%.
The CO2 level in 1959 was 316 ppm and was 401 in 2015, an increase of 31%
in POST-industrial. Furthermore, it looks like there was cherry-picking
to come up with that 50% number: there were measurements as high as the
1959 number in the 1880's.
Therefore modtran must be underestimating the global warming.
Modtran was developed by the U. S. Air Force and has been used by them
and climatologists and tested for decades, so that is unlikely. You are
assuming that a certain increase ratio at lower CO2 levels is equivalent
to the same ratio at higher CO2 levels. It's not. You COULD calculate
it using modtran rather than making vacuous assertions, and you might
learn something :-)
I don't think there are many non-Nicaean churches left. Virtually all
conventional churches are Nicaean, I.e. they follow dictates by people
you consider to have been apostates.
Some protestants accept it after redefining the word "Catholic." Others
don't use it because it's the "work of man" and lacks inspiration from
God. And others accept it after defining for themselves what "one
substance" means. Most people simply don't understand it and don't worry
about it. Which just supports my point that most churches are wrong.