Archaeology of the New Testament

[ZenMode]

You haven't actually provided any evidence that the universe as a whole is unorganized, random, arbitrary.

I have, multiple times actually. I've also made the case that being able to explain events and forces after the fact doesn't mean those events and forces were put in place by a deity.

If I dump a bucket of tennis balls off my roof, I could explain, via mathematics and physics, why each ball moved how it did. That doesn't mean I, when dumping the balls, had the power to dictate their movement, right?

Saying "I don't know" is agnostic.

I'm not saying I don't know regarding gods. I'm saying I don't know exactly how, or if, the universe came into existence.

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.

There isn't enough evidence to believe that an all-powerful being brought the universe into existence, so I have no reason to believe one did. There's also insufficient evidence to support the existence of any of the thousands of God that man has claimed exist.

Believe with a lack of evidence is called faith. That's why religious people and leaders talk about faith so much.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Im the dumbest idiot on the internet and am proud of it.

Fixed that for you.

your masonic God of reason is a demon.

you refuse to examine the reason of morality, that proves your God is demon.

morality means people working together and flourishing and Satan hates humanity, like Nazis, like postmodernist pedophiles.

 

[Cypress]

I have, multiple times actually. I've also made the case that being able to explain events and forces after the fact doesn't mean those events and forces were put in place by a deity.

No you haven't. You had subjective complaints about the physiology or psychology of one hominid species on one tiny planet.

Humans make up essentially zero percent of the matter and energy in the universe. You cannot point to homo sapiens as being proof of a universal property of the cosmos as a whole.

More importantly, homo sapiens are entirely composed of trillions and trillions of quarks and electrons - each one of which is precisely following the physical rules of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. That doesn't sound unorganized at all.

If I dump a bucket of tennis balls off my roof, I could explain, via mathematics and physics, why each ball moved how it did. That doesn't mean I, when dumping the balls, had the power to dictate their movement, right?

You're talking about the acceleration of matter through a tensor field according to Einstein, which we call gravity. This acceleration in this spacetime field is precisely defined by a mathematical relationship, and can hardly be described as an unorganized and arbitrary physical phenomenon.

I'm not saying I don't know regarding gods. I'm saying I don't know exactly how, or if, the universe came into existence.

Okay, that's agnostic. A genuine atheist has to be confident that a lawful and mathematically rational universe was caused somehow by the inanimate and irrational.

There isn't enough evidence to believe that an all-powerful being brought the universe into existence, so I have no reason to believe one did.

But this is good. I've got you tacitly acknowledging that there is at least circumstantial and inferential evidence that there might be some rational agency underlying the origin and nature of the universe.

There's also insufficient evidence to support the existence of any of the thousands of God that man has claimed exist.

I haven't made any reference to Zeus, Odin, or Ra.

I simply made the case that it seems logically incoherent that the rational and lawful can be caused by the inanimate and irrational.

 

[Cypress]

morality means people working together!

That's self-interest, not morality.

Morality is based on selfless self-sacrifice for the welfare of others, with no expectations of being reciprocated or paid back.

See for example: the parable of the good Samaritan, or the story of Oskar Schindler.

 

[ZenMode]

I simply made the case that it seems logically incoherent that the rational and lawful can be caused by the inanimate and irrational.

I originally wrote a much longer response, but erased it because it was all "beside the point".

Again, this is just conflating being able to explain after the fact with a conscious being creating it.

The other day I saw a video of a tire flying off of a moving car and rolling a very long distance before crashing into a building. With the right knowledge, I could explain the speed of the tire when it left the vehicle. I could explain the movement of the tire and why it followed the path it did. I could explain why it lost and gained speed, why it bounced as high as it did, why it turned or didn't turn and with how much force it impacted the structure that it eventually collided with.

Does that mean that a conscious being set the tire in motion?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.
.

The entire basis of science is that natural laws exist and that they are consistent across the Universe. There are still unknowns like the nature of dark matter and dark energy plus all the strange shit that happens to matter when it goes into a black hole.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I originally wrote a much longer response, but erased it because it was all "beside the point".

Again, this is just conflating being able to explain after the fact with a conscious being creating it.

The other day I saw a video of a tire flying off of a moving car and rolling a very long distance before crashing into a building. With the right knowledge, I could explain the speed of the tire when it left the vehicle. I could explain the movement of the tire and why it followed the path it did. I could explain why it lost and gained speed, why it bounced as high as it did, why it turned or didn't turn and with how much force it impacted the structure that it eventually collided with.

Does that mean that a conscious being set the tire in motion?

Yes. A conscious being created the tire, drove the car and either crashed breaking the tire off or failed to tighten the lugnuts.

That said, I think you argument is to denounce that the creation of the Universe was by an intelligence. That's a great unknown. While I believe there is a power behind the creation of the Universe and that this power exists beyond the natural universe, it's impossible to know it's exact nature. We can only guess.

My guess is that it is not an elderly white man sitting on a golden throne surrounded by angels singing hosannas or 72 virgins.

 

[Cypress]

The other day I saw a video of a tire flying off of a moving car and rolling a very long distance before crashing into a building. With the right knowledge, I could explain the speed of the tire when it left the vehicle. I could explain the movement of the tire and why it followed the path it did. I could explain why it lost and gained speed, why it bounced as high as it did, why it turned or didn't turn and with how much force it impacted the structure that it eventually collided with.

Given sufficient information you can predict the past or future position, momentum, velocity of any matter in the universe. The fact that we can use mathematical laws to predict the past and the future certainly does not point to an unorganized, random, arbitrary universe.

In fact, it is one of the great mysteries of the universe that human-invented mathematics so accurately predict and reflect the cosmos. There was a famous paper written by a preeminent physicist about this titled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics".

Does that mean that a conscious being set the tire in motion?

Humans don't even have an agreed upon definition for conciousness, nor can we explain what it actually is.

I don't like to use vague and poorly defined language, so what I would say is that a lawful, mathematically rational, finely tuned universe seems to point to an underlying rational agency or organizing principle.
It seems logically incoherent to me that the rational could be caused by the inanimate and irrational.

 

[Cypress]

The entire basis of science is that natural laws exist and that they are consistent across the Universe. There are still unknowns like the nature of dark matter and dark energy plus all the strange shit that happens to matter when it goes into a black hole.

Good point. The fact that dark matter and dark energy seem to have predictable effects on galaxies and the expansion of the universe gives one hope that there is some underlying principle or process discoverable by humans.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Given sufficient information you can predict the past or future position, momentum, velocity of any matter in the universe. The fact that we can use mathematical laws to predict the past and the future certainly does not point to an unorganized, random, arbitrary universe.

In fact, it is one of the great mysteries of the universe that human-invented mathematics so accurately predict and reflect the cosmos. There was a famous paper written by a preeminent physicist about this titled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics".


Humans don't even have an agreed upon definition for conciousness, nor can we explain what it actually is.

I don't like to use vague and poorly defined language, so what I would say is that a lawful, mathematically rational, finely tuned universe seems to point to an underlying rational agency or organizing principle.
It seems logically incoherent to me that the rational could be caused by the inanimate and irrational.

Wrong.
No.
Delusional.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point. The fact that dark matter and dark energy seem to have predictable effects on galaxies and the expansion of the universe gives one hope that there is some underlying principle or process discoverable by humans.

Predictability is also a key part of science. If we can't predict something, either we don't understand it or the rules of the Universe are inconsistent. All the facts indicate it's the former; we don't understand the process or lack the ability to compute the process.

It fascinates me that our scientists can compute a trajectory of a satellite to enter orbit around Mars or some other object. Same for being able to change the orbit of an asteroid by hitting it.

 

[Cypress]

Predictability is also a key part of science. If we can't predict something, either we don't understand it or the rules of the Universe are inconsistent. All the facts indicate it's the former; we don't understand the process or lack the ability to compute the process.

It fascinates me that our scientists can compute a trajectory of a satellite to enter orbit around Mars or some other object. Same for being able to change the orbit of an asteroid by hitting it.

For sure. When you really think about it, it is remarkably that scientists can predict the birth and the death of the sun simply on the basis of our mathematical knowledge of nuclear fusion, chemistry, and gravity.

 

[Cypress]

Yes. A conscious being created the tire, drove the car and either crashed breaking the tire off or failed to tighten the lugnuts.

That said, I think you argument is to denounce that the creation of the Universe was by an intelligence. That's a great unknown. While I believe there is a power behind the creation of the Universe and that this power exists beyond the natural universe, it's impossible to know it's exact nature. We can only guess.

My guess is that it is not an elderly white man sitting on a golden throne surrounded by angels singing hosannas or 72 virgins.

Perfectly sensible statements.​

 

[ZenMode]

Given sufficient information you can predict the past or future position, momentum, velocity of any matter in the universe. The fact that we can use mathematical laws to predict the past and the future certainly does not point to an unorganized, random, arbitrary universe.

In fact, it is one of the great mysteries of the universe that human-invented mathematics so accurately predict and reflect the cosmos. There was a famous paper written by a preeminent physicist about this titled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics".


Humans don't even have an agreed upon definition for conciousness, nor can we explain what it actually is.

I don't like to use vague and poorly defined language, so what I would say is that a lawful, mathematically rational, finely tuned universe seems to point to an underlying rational agency or organizing principle.
It seems logically incoherent to me that the rational could be caused by the inanimate and irrational.

That is a WHOLE lotta words to avoid answering a simple question.

Does the fact that a sufficiently educated person could explain, after the fact, all events surrounding the tire, mean that a conscious being set the tire in motion.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes. A conscious being created the tire, drove the car and either crashed breaking the tire off or failed to tighten the lugnuts.

Physics is what set the tire in motion, not a conscious being.

That said, I think you argument is to denounce that the creation of the Universe was by an intelligence. That's a great unknown.

Correct. It is unknown and I'm more than happy to say "I don't know".

While I believe there is a power behind the creation of the Universe and that this power exists beyond the natural universe, it's impossible to know it's exact nature. We can only guess.

My guess is that it is not an elderly white man sitting on a golden throne surrounded by angels singing hosannas or 72 virgins.

I bet it's a rainbow unicorn that farts confetti.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course you will. That way you can avoid any useful discussion and keep on with your idiotic phrases and trolling!

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

For those who don't trust the {cough} scientific "expertise" of a random Internet troll.

You aren't discussing science.

Yes, the universe is actively expanding.

The Universe has no known boundary.

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.

The Universe is not a fabric.

Here are the key details on how we know this and how it works:

This should be good...

• 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]

What is 'accelerating', Void?
You are not discussing science.
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
The Universe has no known boundary.

• • 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]

The Universe has no known boundary.
There is no 'expansion rate'.
Argument from randU fallacy.

• • 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]

The Universe is not a galaxy.
The Universe has no known boundary.
There is no 'data'.
Cherry picking 'data' is not data.
Science is not a government agency.

 

[Into the Night]

I have, multiple times actually. I've also made the case that being able to explain events and forces after the fact doesn't mean those events and forces were put in place by a deity.

If I dump a bucket of tennis balls off my roof, I could explain, via mathematics and physics, why each ball moved how it did. That doesn't mean I, when dumping the balls, had the power to dictate their movement, right?

The Universe is not a bucket of tennis balls.
You are dumping the bucket. You have the power to dictate their movement.

I'm not saying I don't know regarding gods. I'm saying I don't know exactly how, or if, the universe came into existence.

How do you know it did?

There isn't enough evidence to believe that an all-powerful being brought the universe into existence,

You cannot make any evidence just disappear, Void.

so I have no reason to believe one did.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

There's also insufficient evidence to support the existence of any of the thousands of God that man has claimed exist.

You cannot make any evidence just disappear, Void.
Attempted negative proof fallacy.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Believe with a lack of evidence is called faith. That's why religious people and leaders talk about faith so much.

Redefinition fallacy.
Faith is a circular argument by another name (the Argument of Faith). That itself is NOT a circular argument fallacy. Trying to PROVE a circular argument True or False is not possible. This is what a fundamentalist does. Your fundamentalism is no different than his, other than the circular arguments you are both trying to prove.

You are both fundamentalists.

 

[Into the Night]

Fixed that for you.

your masonic God of reason is a demon.

you refuse to examine the reason of morality, that proves your God is demon.

morality means people working together and flourishing and Satan hates humanity, like Nazis, like postmodernist pedophiles.

Go learn what 'moral' means.
Free masonry has no specific god.
Free masonry does not condone Shinto.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That is a WHOLE lotta words to avoid answering a simple question.

Does the fact that a sufficiently educated person could explain, after the fact, all events surrounding the tire, mean that a conscious being set the tire in motion.

A tire is an artificial construct. That's a big clue right there. Working it's trajectory backwards, a person would be able to trace where it came from.