runner,

<<Don't be discouraged by those not interested in truth. Personally I know a number of people who have come to Christ lately. You don't know how many truth seekers are listening in. It is only Christ who can soften a heart and open a person to seek the truth.>>

Thank you so much for your encouragement.

Some posters on OLO are so bad with their attacks and logical fallacies that I won't open their posts - to avoid further rants at me personally or my God.

'Some posters on OLO are so bad with their attacks and logical fallacies that I won't open their posts - to avoid further rants at me personally or my God.'

As you know Ozspen I am no theologian and sometimes am not very proud of the way I fight back. I remind myself that Christ Himself the Truth was mocked, criticised, falsely accused and then died for those who did these things.

I have often thought of leaving olo but overall after about 15 years have found that the secularist/Marxist/god deniers have no science, rational or truth on their side. That is why they always revert to attacks rather than reason. I appreciate that by and large we are not censored by olo. We live in an ever increasing world that is hostile and intolerant to truth. Just like at the haters who demanded that Samaritans Purse were removed from providing medical care to coronavirus patients in New York simply because they were Christians. The usual twitter/facebook/lgbtwsde brigade really are disgusting bigots but championed on by the media. God help our children and grandchildren should the Lord tarry.

OzSpen,

OK, OK, you don't want tell us how many converts you picked up on this post; but there is something you can tell us: Pell - guilty or not guilty? You're in the God game so we reckon you should know the answer to that.

loudmouth2,

<<OK, OK, you don't want tell us how many converts you picked up on this post; but there is something you can tell us: Pell - guilty or not guilty? You're in the God game so we reckon you should know the answer to that.>>

Please tell me how much evidence you have to convict or not convict Cardinal Pell. I'm not in a court sifting through the evidence, so I'm not in a position to make any kind of judgment on George Pell.

Are you a criminal lawyer with all the evidence laid out before you to make a legal decision?

OzSpen,

God knows if Pell is guilty or not guilty because God is all-knowing.

Did you notice Pell's comment on the RC report where he said the same thing as you just said: That there is no evidence.

The important thing is what he didn't say: He did not say the RC report isn't true.

Even God can work out what is going on there because God is all-knowing.

This post is basically a repeat of a post I made years ago. It's purpose if clear up some misunderstandings that many here are displaying when they talk about the universe operating according to the "Laws of Physics".

It is a very common, even among people with STEM backgrounds, to say that the universe is governed by the "Laws of Physics". But this is not what physicists would say. For them the universe just is what it is and just does what it does. The universe doesn't need to consult the Laws of Physics to determine how it should act nor do the laws command it to act the way it does.

Instead, the laws of physics are mankind's best description, usually expressed in maths, of how some aspect of the universe will appear to be or to act when it is measured/observed. The laws are based on the accumulation of data gained from our previous observations and from logical/mathematical reasoning applied to the data. Certain fundamental philosophical assumptions are taken when making these descriptions: such as for example, 1) that the bit of the universe we observe is potentially understandable to us (ie: our intelligence can make sensible descriptions of what we see), 2) The behaviour of the universe is uniform throughout, so the laws apply here on earth equally as on a planet in a distant galaxy, 3) A simple description is preferred over a complex one (eg: if there are two or more possible equations describing the all of the relevant observations then the one which has the least assumptions, least inputs and is the simplest is the one we prefer to call a law of physics). These are just some example assumptions, but there are others as well.
In addition to these assumptions there is a mandatory requirement: All laws are falsifiable- in that they are descriptions which could potentially be proven false by some direct or indirect observation (eg: Newton's law of gravity is falsifiable and indeed was proven false by observations such as the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury).

--continued below--