Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

No, you literally used the word 'theory'. You're trying to change the meaning of what you actually wrote.

A proper hypothesis is testable.

If it's not testable, it's just speculation or intelligent guesswork.

Speculation and guesswork are not unique to science, and you can't pull those words aside and treat them as uniquely scientific.

A hypothesis cannot be tested. It simply exists.
Science is not a casino.

 

[Cypress]

Buzzword fallacies!

Buzzword!

^^ That's what people who never set foot in a physics, chemistry, or cosmology class say because they don't understand the basic lexicon of science.

He is not an atheist! He is not an atheist!

​

I definitely consider myself to be atheist

 

[Into the Night]

So, The two primary explanations for how the universe came into existence are the Big bang and a sky wizard.

??

Who is this 'sky wizard' you keep mentioning?

How do you know the Universe 'came into existence' at all?

If the Big bang theory is not a scientific theory, what is it?

A nonscientific theory, and a fundamentalist style religion.

Correct. Logically speaking, science has never been proven wrong by religion. Religion has repeatedly been proven wrong by science.

Religion has no proofs.
Science has no proofs.

Science is completely atheistic. It doesn't care whether a god or gods exist or not.

The ability to write equations to explain some aspects of the universe doesn't mean the universe was created rationally or lawfully.

Buzzword fallacies (rationally, lawfully).

How do you know the Universe was created at all?

As I've said several times, I could dump a bucket of tennis balls off my roof and, after the fact, an equation could be written to explain each individual balls movement. That doesn't mean I was somehow controlling how they bounce.

Oddly enough, you ARE controlling how they bounce.
YOU decide where to throw them off the roof.
YOU decide how many tennis balls are in the bucket.
YOU decide whether the tennis balls are dumped onto concrete, a garden, a pool of water, etc.

After that, each ball follows the theory of motion and the theory of gravity as laid out by Newton.

But, and this is an important point, the Universe is not a bucket of tennis balls.
The Universe is unorganized.

Except for the last where you see a micro-organized universe where one doesn't exist and the part where you forget that everything science has disproved religion continually while religion has never disproved science.

Recognizing design flaws has nothing to do with being atheist. Evolution isn't perfect. Evolution has nothing to do with religion or a belief in gods.

Science is not a proof. Science cannot prove any religion True or False.
Religion is not a proof. Religion cannot prove anything True or False.

 

[ZenMode]

^^ That's what people who never set foot in a physics, chemistry, or cosmology class say because they don't understand the basic lexicon of science.

​

@Into the Night has his own vocabulary, his own dictionary and his own definitions of words.

No reason to take any of it seriously.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm talking about an untestable hypothesis.

that can exist and can be scientific.

Science isn't any hypothesis.

 

[Into the Night]

I think a theory can also be untestable tho.

This part is correct.
A theory of science MUST be falsifiable, which means it must be testable.
A theory that is not testable or falsifiable is not a theory of science.

 

[ZenMode]

Oddly enough, you ARE

You control how many there are and whether or not they are dropped. Once you leave the bucket, all control is lost .

 

[Into the Night]

It's very convenient for you to equate what I've been talking about with your cartoon of a wizard in a white robe. I haven't asked you any questions about wizards, Viking gods, or a god of Abraham in a white robe.

He seems to worship some kind of 'sky wizard'. He keeps mentioning it.

The big bang is a scientific theory that explains how the universe started to expand.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. Science has NO theories about an unobserved past event.

It is not a theory of what actually caused the universe.

How do you know the Universe had a 'cause'. How could it? There is no Universe for said 'cause' to exist in!

There is no scientific theory of first cause, and there never will be because it is a philosophical question.

Philosophy is not a question.

Science and religion are asking different questions.

Science is not 'questions'.

You're ignoring the question of why matter and energy follow mathematically rational and lawful rules.

Man created mathematics.
Man created every theory of science.
Buzzword fallacies (matter, energy, mathematically, rational, lawful, rules). Try English. It works better.

Math is a system of pure logic.

Mathematics is not logic.
Logic is not mathematics.
Both are closed functional systems, therefore both are capable of a proof, and with it, the power of prediction.

Surely you're not saying something as foolish as logic and rationality just suddenly appeared by chance from the inanimate and irrational.

Buzzword fallacies (logic, rationality, inanimate, irrational).
The Universe is unorganized.

Einstein was famously amazed that the universe is comprehensible, mathematical, rational.

Man created mathematics.
Man created every theory of science.
The Universe has no known boundary.
The Universe is unorganized.

The fact that you just take it for granted that the universe is lawful and rationally intelligible just suggests your education was limited to rote memorization - and you never thought about the really deep questions of ultimate reality.

Buzzword fallacies (lawful, rationally, ultimate reality).
There is no absolute or 'ultimate' reality.

Science has not disproved religion.

Science as not disproved anything. It is not possible to prove a religion False. Magick Word (buzzword fallacy).

The fact that we can make accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy, and conservation tell you nothing about ultimate first cause, purpose, or meaning.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both thought the rational intelligibility of the universe pointed to something really marvelous. For Newton, it was evidence of the Christian God. For Einstein it was a revelation of some type of universal Pantheism.

Go learn what 'rational' means and where it is used. Buzword fallacy.

You only are aware of "design flaws" because of some atheist article you read.

He is not an aheist.

Prior to that you took extreme delight in your eyesight and body when watching sunsets or playing golf. It didn't occur to you anything was seriously wrong.

You are not thinking about the deepest level of physical reality, in which the universal physical constants and fundamental forces of physics converge at the edge of a razor blade to make complex atomic matter possible.
.

Go learn what 'reality' mea.
There is no such thing as 'universal constants'.
Natural constants are used to convert a relation into Man's units of measurement. In other words, the natural constant itself is created by Man.
Cliche fallacy.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Science has NO theories about an unobserved past event.

yet there is ample proof you were dropped on your head as a foundling.

 

[Hawkeye10]

yet there is ample proof you were dropped on your head as a foundling.

We need to talk about your behavior problems.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

We need to talk about your behavior problems.

what are your concerns, Egg Roll?

 

[Hawkeye10]

what are your concerns, Egg Roll?

Your shit behavior will start with what I care about.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Your shit behavior will start with what I care about.

my shit behavior is my gift to you, fortune cookie.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

It's very convenient for you to equate what I've been talking about with your cartoon of a wizard in a white robe. I haven't asked you any questions about wizards, Viking gods, or a god of Abraham in a white robe.

The big bang is a scientific theory that explains how the universe started to expand.
It is not a theory of what actually caused the universe.
There is no scientific theory of first cause, and there never will be because it is a philosophical question.

Science and religion are asking different questions. Science does not answer any existential questions about purpose, meaning, love, free will or freedom. Science does not answer teleological questions of first cause or ultimate origin.

You're ignoring the question of why matter and energy follow mathematically rational and lawful rules.

Math is a system of pure logic. Surely you're not saying something as foolish as logic and rationality just suddenly appeared by chance from the inanimate and irrational.

Einstein was famously amazed that the universe is comprehensible, mathematical, rational.

The fact that you just take it for granted that the universe is lawful and rationally intelligible just suggests your education was limited to rote memorization - and you never thought about the really deep questions of ultimate reality.

Science has not disproved religion. The fact that we can make accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy, and conservation tell you nothing about ultimate first cause, purpose, or meaning.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both thought the rational intelligibility of the universe pointed to something really marvelous. For Newton, it was evidence of the Christian God. For Einstein it was a revelation of some type of universal Pantheism.

You only are aware of "design flaws" because of some atheist article you read.

Prior to that you took extreme delight in your eyesight and body when watching sunsets or playing golf. It didn't occur to you anything was seriously wrong.

You are not thinking about the deepest level of physical reality, in which the universal physical constants and fundamental forces of physics converge at the edge of a razor blade to make complex atomic matter possible.
.

just because science can't answer it doesn't mean it's philosophical.

it's an unknown.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

how big is her gash?

don't know, must be a philosophical question.

 

[Cypress]

@Into the Night has his own vocabulary, his own dictionary and his own definitions of words.

No reason to take any of it seriously.

He's got a few screws looser

 

[Cypress]

I don't agree that first cause is strictly a philosophical question, but I see no reason to debate that now.

Explain how the ultimate first cause is conceivably scientifically testable.

Religion makes very specific claims that directly conflict with what we know about physics and biology.

You are just angry at the Bible.
I've seen nothing about Pantheism, Deism, or Panentheism that conflicts with science.

Nope. I addressed it multiple times. What you call a rational and lawful design based on mathematics is actually just writing equations to explain things after the fact.

The vector field of acceleration that represents gravity has existed for over 13 billion years, long before humans were around and is universal in character and scope. And this vector field has always had a universal inverse square mathematical relationship - A relationship that was always around 13 billion years before humans invented Hindu-Arabic numerals.

Mathematical relationships are pure logic. I'm still waiting to hear why the best explanation for the universe is that the logical and rational just suddenly appeared from the irrational and inanimate.

As I mentioned multiple times, I could drop a bucket of tennis balls off my roof and someone, with sufficient knowledge, could write an equation for every bound and movement of the balls. That doesn't mean the movement of the balls was the result of a creator's design.

The balls are acting under the influence of a vector field of acceleration that has an universal inverse square mathematical relationship. We've named that mathematical vector field 'gravity'.

Mathematical relationships are pure logic. I'm still waiting to hear why the best explanation for the universe is that the logical and rational just suddenly appeared from the irrational and inanimate.

• The Bible claims that god flooded the world. There's no evidence that ever happened
• The Bible claims the earth is a few thousand years old. It's not.
• The Bible claims that the first two modern humans were zapped into existence in one location on Earth. That is not the case.
• Several religions claim that the Earth is the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it.
• The Bible makes claims about the human body's ability to function after being dead for 3 days. That's not possible.
• The Bible makes claims about the surface tension of water and claims it can support an adult male. It can't

Should I go on?

You are just angry at the Bible.

I've seen nothing about Pantheism, Deism, or Panentheism that conflicts with science.

Meh. Ok.

Great. A lot of people have thought a lot of things throughout history. Doesn't mean they're right.

Nope, but even if you were right, that doesn't mean the flaws disappear. I could have read the flaws in sky writing. They're still flaws by a creator that YOU claim is so concerned about detail that it literally put rules into place to dictate how microscopic particles move.

Odd that a creator/god, with that level of detail, wouldn't have seen the many flaws in the design of humans.

The fact that I appreciate my ability to see also doesn't mean the human eye has a design flaw. The fact that I appreciate my ability to walk/move doesn't mean that the human spine and knees aren't flawed.

This is all just more misdirection. It simply doesn't make sense that your creator/god would make the mistakes I mentioned.

You didn't know there were any serious flaws in the human body until you read some article by an atheist complaining about it. So your experience of life and your intuition trumps what that atheist wrote.

Never once in your life did did you marvel at the beauty of a sunset, and then cursed your eyes for being too flawed to appreciate the glory and awe striking aesthetics of a great sunset.
.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Explain how the ultimate first cause is conceivably scientifically testable.

You are just angry at the Bible.
I've seen nothing about Pantheism, Deism, or Panentheism that conflicts with science.

The vector field of acceleration that represents gravity has existed for over 13 billion years, long before humans were around and is universal in character and scope. And this vector field has always had a universal inverse square mathematical relationship - A relationship that was always around 13 billion years before humans invented Hindu-Arabic numerals.

Mathematical relationships are pure logic. I'm still waiting to hear why the best explanation for the universe is that the logical and rational just suddenly appeared from the irrational and inanimate.

The balls are acting under the influence of a vector field of acceleration that has an universal inverse square mathematical relationship. We've named that mathematical vector field 'gravity'.

Mathematical relationships are pure logic. I'm still waiting to hear why the best explanation for the universe is that the logical and rational just suddenly appeared from the irrational and inanimate.

You are just angry at the Bible.

I've seen nothing about Pantheism, Deism, or Panentheism that conflicts with science.

You didn't know there were any serious flaws in the human body until you read some article by an atheist complaining about it. So your experience of life and your intuition trumps what that atheist wrote.

Never once in your life did did you marvel at the beauty of a sunset, and then cursed your eyes for being too flawed to appreciate the glory and awe striking aesthetics of a great sunset.
.

you're an idiot.

just because something is unknown doesn't make it "philosophical".

 

[Cypress]

just because something is unknown doesn't make it "philosophical"!!!

Any question that lends itself to deductive, inductive, or abstractive inquiry is philosophical. Philosophy is based on reason and logic.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Any question that lends itself to deductive, inductive, or abstractive inquiry is philosophical.

no.
wrong.

all speculation is not philosophy.