Marcus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:01 pm
Ed1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
You do not comprehend my purpose here. My purpose is to make a record, online of what is actually happening, for true seekers of truth. What I do here is not to convince non-believers in what I do of any sort. It is to leave a record for those that it will ultimately help in the process of time to find truth.
You've been talking to Rosebud!??
Ed1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem, because you think you can see into my head, and you think that I do not know what I'm doing, and you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods.
No, I am not thinking I can see into your head, I am simply reading your work. You are mis-using vocabulary that has specific scientific meaning. If you want to apply a different meaning to these words, you will need to clearly indicate that.
Ed1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem, because you think you can see into my head, and you think that I do not know what I'm doing, and you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods. My methods are application of secular things in a religious realm, or as some have put it, in a different magisterium, where the various magisteria, or realms of knowledge, do not overlap.
ok. Then don't mis-use words with specific and universally accepted scientific meaning without asterisking the terms and providing a glossary of your alternate definitions.
Or maybe, its better to say that the Egyptological or secular things can be used in the other realm of the religious, but it doesn't go the other way.
No, I disagree. If you use secular concepts, you can't pick and choose. All of a concept applies, or none of it.
When I blaze a new trail, it is to establish a new way of doing things in the realm of the relgious. It doesn't qualify as science, and can't, and doesn't qualify in any secular sense as anything that can or would be accepted by secularists, and I don't know that it was ever proposed that it ought to be (by me), at least not in recent times.
Your use of scientific vocabulary implies that, however.
Ed1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
. My conclusions are driven by evidence, instead of trying to prove something. Because I can't get through to the apologists of today, perhaps I will get through to some of tomorrow. And they will need a record to find what I have done. I am not looking for your acceptance of my definition of evidence, either.
Then that is another word you will need to asterisk and provide your alternate definition for.
Ed1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
Believers are not necessarily scientists when doing religion, and can't do anything scientifically when doing religion, or rather perhaps, cannot do it when they are not doing science.
Agreed.
Nevertheless, they can apply scientific principles to things of belief in a religious realm.
You just disagreed with your own statement above.
I don't need your permission to reverse-engineer something in a religious realm.
of course not, no one is talking about "permission." However, you will receive pushback if you mis-use the term and no one needs permission to do so.
the religous is beyond science, and therefore is beyond the ability of science to falsify. Assuming that because science doesn't uphold the religious constitutes the falsification of the religious is not honest.
That is not what is happening here.
These are my comments on your work, Ed1. This is Celestial, so I would appreciate it if you would remind yourself of the rules if you'd like to respond. Shulem has mentioned that several times as well.