Archaeology of the New Testament

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Yes, I do.. I also know how it's defined by philosophy (which you reject).
Maybe you should watch the Matrix movies again to get a mild clue. Another good discourse of it can be found in "The Day the Universe Changed", by James Burke. However, the Matrix can be more fun to watch.

Every piece of fiction creates its own reality.
Every person creates their own reality.
Every religion is centered around the common elements of reality of each of its members (other elements remain unique to each person, of course). These common elements of 'reality'. are all centered on the initial circular argument (or argument of faith) of that religion.

There is no absolute reality.

Watch movies is how you see reality?

 

[Into the Night]

This is all just a misguided effort to defend your sky wizard because, in your mind, your sky wizard makes no mistakes and has no design flaws.

What 'sky wizard', Void? I never claimed a belief in any sky wizard.

 

[Into the Night]

My use of "Derp" has already been explained.

Your use of "Derp" is because you have lost context again.

 

[Into the Night]

Watch movies is how you see reality?

Go learn what 'reality' means.

 

[Into the Night]

I've listed the many flaws aka evidence, multiple times.

Meh.

Your concession is accepted.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Your use of "Derp" is because you have lost context again.

My use of derp is because you play dumb.

 

[ZenMode]

Meh.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

Again, you play dumb, pretend like the flaws I pointed out don't exist and then try to deflect. Not my fault or my problem.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

He isn't. He's a fundamentalist religious nut.

The Universe is unorganized. To learn what 'rational' means.
How could anything 'cause' the Universe? There would have been no Universe to have a 'cause' in!

Buzzword fallacies. Try English. It works better.

Buzzword fallacies. Try English. It work better.
You are denying logic.

excuse me while I cause in your universe.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

My use of derp is because you play dumb.

pred = backwards derp.

 

[Into the Night]

My use of derp is because you play dumb.

Your use of "Derp" is because you have lost context again.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, you play dumb, pretend like the flaws I pointed out don't exist and then try to deflect. Not my fault or my problem.

Fallacy fallacy. Again, you play God, trying to describe what you personally consider 'flaws'. It is your fault AND your problem.

 

[Into the Night]

pred = backwards derp.

So are you saying he's a Predator?

 

[ZenMode]

Your use of "Derp" is because you have lost context again.

My use of deep is because you play dumb, generally more than on e per post.

 

[ZenMode]

Fallacy fallacy. Again, you play God, trying to describe what you personally consider 'flaws'. It is your fault AND your problem.

I play a rational person with the ability to observe and form opinions based on easily identifiable details.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Go learn what 'reality' means.

Reality is something you'll never get!

 

[Cypress]

Ok one last try and then I will just accept that you have no interest in an honest discussion....

This is at least the 5th time you've tried to rollout this strawman of flawless or perfect. Nobody has said anything about flawless or perfect. I'm not saying man should be built like Wolverine. I'm talking about obvious design flaws....errors.... mistakes.

So, are you going to address the question of why your God would create an entire universe, that is 99.999999999% uninhabitable, and create a single planet to house one single creature with which to have a relationship.....and then make that creatures:
- eyes backward
- spine and knees designed for mammals that walk on four legs
- hearing and sight that degrades over time
- DNA susceptible to mutations
- breathing and eating through the same tube, making the basic act of staying alive (eating) inherently dangerous and sometimes deadly

Or are you going to keep deflecting?

You are just angry at something you heard 40 years ago in Sunday school.

None of that disproves the concept that a rational, lawful universe is caused by a rational agency. And none of it proves that atheism is the truth.

And it absolutely has nothing to do with cosmological fine tuning; the convergence of the universal physical constants and net cosmic energy balance on values that appear balanced on the edge of a razor blade to allow matter and the universe to exist.

 

[Cypress]

The Universe is unorganized!

The universe would not be lawful, comprehensible, predictable if it were actually true that it is random and unorganized.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

You are just angry at something you heard 40 years ago in Sunday school.

None of that disproves the concept that a rational, lawful universe is caused by a rational agency. And none of it proves that atheism is the truth.

And it absolutely has nothing to do with cosmological fine tuning; the convergence of the universal physical constants and net cosmic energy balance on values that appear balanced on the edge of a razor blade to allow matter and the universe to exist.

no.

you're a fucking idiot.

basic consistencies in physics don't prove god, numbnutz.

 

[ZenMode]

You are just angry at something you heard 40 years ago in Sunday school.

None of that disproves the concept that a rational, lawful universe is caused by a rational agency. And none of it proves that atheism is the truth.

And it absolutely has nothing to do with cosmological fine tuning; the convergence of the universal physical constants and net cosmic energy balance on values that appear balanced on the edge of a razor blade to allow matter and the universe to exist.

So, again, you believe that your God "rationally" designed and created the universe, at a molecular level, but just half-assed it on the designed of the one mammal he created that he wanted to have a relationship with and the one planet he created to put the mammal on?

 

[Cypress]

basic consistencies in physics don't prove god!!

Never said a,single word about proof.

"Basic" is not a word that I would use. It's statistically improbable all these universal constants would all converge on the exact values to support atomic matter and a stable space time. Fine tuning is a legitimate scientific and philosophical question.

The question isn't about proof.
It's about what seems to be a better explanation:

That the rational, lawful, and material was caused by the irrational, inanimate, and immaterial?

Or that the rational and lawful was caused by the rational and purposeful.