Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
ZenMode
Well-known member
You have no interest in words or definitions, beyond the ones you make up or deny exist.Not with YOU anymore!
And you never defined it.
It was clearly defined, not that you have any interest in anything but trolling.
It was mathematically proven over 20 years ago that an expanding universe cannot be infinite into the past. The BGV theorem proves the universe has to run up against a finite spacetime boundary in the past.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
all bullshit.
Into the Night
Contributor
Science isn't here.
Into the Night
Contributor
Inversion fallacy.
Don't try to claim posts you never made.
I'll consider your use of this buzzphrase as meaningless chant.
Into the Night
Contributor
There is no mathematical proof of an origin of the Universe.
The Universe isn't expanding.
The Universe has no known boundary.
No boundary.
The Universe has no age.
The Universe is unorganized.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Of course you will. That way you can avoid any useful discussion and keep on with your idiotic phrases and trolling!
ZenMode
Well-known member
For those who don't trust the {cough} scientific "expertise" of a random Internet troll.
Yes, the universe is actively expanding. It’s not that galaxies are flying through space; instead, the fabric of space itself is stretching, which causes the distance between celestial objects to increase over time.
Here are the key details on how we know this and how it works:
- It’s Accelerating: Since the 1990s, scientists have known that the universe isn't just expanding, but the rate of expansion is speeding up. This outward push is driven by a mysterious force called dark energy. [1, 2]
- The Hubble Tension: Measuring exactly how fast it's expanding is the subject of ongoing cosmic debate. Depending on the method used, the expansion rate (the Hubble constant) falls between 67 and 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec. This discrepancy—known as the "Hubble tension"—is currently one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics. [1, 2]
- How We Know: In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble proved that distant galaxies are moving away from us by analyzing their light, which shifts into longer, redder wavelengths as it stretches across the cosmos. You can learn more about how "standard candles" and other measurements provide this data via NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Logic, inference, reflection, and evidence is what lead me to my beliefs.
Those words have meaning, and as Einstein, Newton, and Stephen Hawking said - order and organization is the overwhelming impression you get of the universe when you study it scientifically.
As an atheist, your only option is to believe the cause of a mathematically rational and lawful universe had to be something inanimate, irrational, and random.
That's logically incoherent, and I can see why you would studiously avoid invoking an inanimate/irrational cause for the universe.
According to atheists.
I've never heard anyone but atheists and materialists use that term. You don't have carte blanche to force everyone else to use your made-up arbitrary term.
God of the gaps is logically incoherent because there are no gaps. Science does not explain. It describes.
And that's the way it's been since science got rid of Aristotle's teleology as a focus of scientific inquiry.
Now you are tip-toeing away from the atheist label. There are earlier threads on this board where you are unequivocal in calling yourself atheist.
Sir, you are the one playing word games. You claim to be absolutely sure there is no higher agency involved in the origin of the universe. But then you say you don't know what caused the universe. Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't have even had to if you and IntoTheNight had just accepted my word that the universe is organized, lawful, mathematically rational. It's only when you denied my statements that I had to cite Einstein and Hawking.
The BGV theorem is a robust mathematical proof authored by three highly acclaimed theoretical physicists.all bullshit!
ZenMode
Well-known member
All of those things are why I don't believe in gods.
They have meanings that are subjective. Despite Into the Night and I having completely different views on God, we agree that the universe is unorganized, proving that it's subjective.
No. My view of the universe is what it is. A lack of God allows me to be more objective. I'm not looking for evidence of fairytale creatures.
Again, I don't want to not believe in gods. I'd love to believe that I can live forever in the clouds.
According to reason and evidence which leads to not believing in gods.
Of course you haven't. There are no gaps for people who believe in gods.
Like I said above....
I'm not. Atheist is a word with a meaning, I use it because it is accurate, even if unnecessary. If astrology suddenly became ascendant in society, there would likely be a word to describe those who don't believe in astrology.
People who believe in astrology really believe in it, but it's marginalized in society, so nobody cares to create anti-astrology labels.
It's not. I choose to say "I don't know" rather than create and believe in fairytale beings.
Right, but you can't say science isn't involved and then invoke scientist after scientist to support your belief.
Disagreed on an unorganized Universe. The Universe has rules in the form of physics. The Big Bang was the equivalent of breaking the rack in a game of billiards. If the force and angle of impact of the cue ball is known, the motions of the racked balls can be predicted since they all act IAW the laws of physics.
It's the same with the Universe. The only thing that alters the course of matter in the Universe from being set in motion by the Big Bang IAW with the laws of physics is life.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Perhaps you are getting closer. Let me know when you are able to actually quote me.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
What is your first language? Russian? In English, "affected" is not the same as "organized."
Oooooh, it has been a good long while since you involed the Marxist "we". You can't predict anything, so you use the pronoun "we" to imply that you are somehow affiliated with a group of really thmart perthonth who are omniscient ... thus making you omniscient by association.
It's still an omniscience fallacy, as well as an association fallacy. You cannot predict anything, you are not omniscient and you don't speak for any thmart perthonth.
... if nothing else unforseen happens that changes all of that. How is it that unforseen things can happen? How are you not omniscient in all things of this universe since it is all neatly ordered and totally predictble? The universe doesn't care about your lame excuses. The universe doesn't care about your inability to predict any of the random events that you cannot foresee but nonetheless deny happen.
But all is good, you have already confessed to not being able to think of any test of randomness that the universe somehow fails.
When a random collision randomly alters the course of an object, how is its motion somehow not random?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
m
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
... but you are incapable of any of that. You simply regurgitate what your Google results indicate you are to believe.
You should have called boooooolsch't on the person who commanded you to regurgitate this, rather than having simply OBEYED. Neither Einstein nor Hawking believed that there was any separate "scientifically" studying something that was not simply "studying" something.
1. You don't know what an atheist is, despite having been informed many, many times, because you are too stupid to learn.
2. The universe is not sentient and thus, is not "rational."
3. As an atheist, I am fully aware that the universe is completely dynamic, not inanimate, random dust cloud.
4. You still haven't been able to explain why determinism in Nature precludes anything from being random.
All of this is logically incoherent, and I can see why you would studiously avoid any and all learning to avoid your delusion bubble being burst.
So now you pretend to speak for those you mischaracterize and misrepresent. Great. How credible.
... because you never learned anything about science.
You never even learned what science is.
You never even learned what "random" means.
You never even learned what "rational" and "coherent" mean.
You never even learned what an atheist is.
You believe that you are omniscient and that whatever you fabricate must be knowledge and must be true.
... as you do with your misrepresentation of the term "atheist".
Godel mathematically proved otherwise. You can't get around math.
You have no idea what you just wrote. Nonetheless, you erroneously post human-generated representations of laws of Nature as though they are explanations of absolute truth.
Science is not a sentient being; science does not "get rid of" anything. You don't know what science is and you have no business commenting on this topic.
QUESTION: How can one tell when Cypress realizes that he has lost yet again?
ANSWER: He begins declaring that his opponent is admitting defeat and is siding with him.
... and there are earlier threads on this board where you blatantly mischaracterize and misrepresent atheists because preemptive misrepresentation is your only hope in lasting even a few rounds in the discussion before you are forced to "declare" that your opponent has effectively surrendered.
Yes, ZenMode plays word games, but you play EVASION and dishonesty on a level that is way out of his league.
You insist that there absolutely is a "higher" agency (whatever the F that is supposed to mean) involved in the origin of the universe.
... but then you offer nothing but you declarations from omniscience fallacies.
They wouldn't have to if you would provide some test of randomness that the universe fails.
Ooooops, that means the ball is still in your court. Your move.
FTFY.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
cypress is trying to expand the nazi Scientism death cult.
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › topic › scientism
Scientism | philosophy and social science | Britannica
Scientism is a term that refers to the excessive or inappropriate application of scientific methods or principles to fields that are not scientific. Learn how scientism is related to existentialism, Flaubert, Roman Catholicism, and other topics from Britannica articles.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Gustave Flaubert
/ Later years of Gustave Flaubert
In fact it is “scientism” (and by analogy the confusion of doctrines) that Flaubert is arraigning—i.e., the practice of taking science out of its own domain, of confusing efficient and final causes, and of convincing oneself that one understands fundamentals when one has not even grasped the superficial phenomena.…
https://www.britannica.com/biograph...s not even grasped the superficial phenomena.
Read More
/ Later years of Gustave Flaubert
In fact it is “scientism” (and by analogy the confusion of doctrines) that Flaubert is arraigning—i.e., the practice of taking science out of its own domain, of confusing efficient and final causes, and of convincing oneself that one understands fundamentals when one has not even grasped the superficial phenomena.…
https://www.britannica.com/biograph...s not even grasped the superficial phenomena.
Read More
You haven't actually provided any evidence that the universe as a whole is unorganized, random, arbitrary. I'd like to see that evidence became you would be overturning 500 years of physics, as well as contradicting Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, etc.
Saying "I don't know" is agnostic. If you were really aligned with atheism you would be completely confident that a lawful and mathematically rational universe was caused somehow by inanimate, irrational chance.
.
Last edited: