Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

The first quarks and electrons appeared somewhere around a thousandth of a microsecond after the inflationary big bang started.

The Universe has no known origin.
The Universe has no known boundary.

Your religion does not change that.

 

[Into the Night]

It's their way of saying "It's not my responsibility" or "It's not my fault". IMO, it's a very immature POV to dodge personal accountability.

You are describing Democrats.

 

[Into the Night]

Correlation does not explain causation.

Cliche fallacy.

You can't make the jump from saying that electrons are conveying electrical signals in the brain,

Electrons are used as signals in the brain and nervous system.

to saying that explains precisely why humans have a subjective mental experience and a unitary sense of personal identity we call "me" that experiences are happening to.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

You are jumping over a a massive gap of unknowns and uncertainties to declare premature victory. That doesn't even remotely resemble scientific inquiry.

Science is not an 'inquiry'.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not a fallacy because there is no self.

If you think I'm wrong, then show me where the self is in your body. Show me where is the thinker of thoughts, feeler of feelings, etc.

Denial of self fallacy.
RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

You clearly have no desire to respond to simple questions and intentionally tap dance around them with word games.

Kettle fallacy.

You are making the same mistake as early man, which is filling in unknowns with imaginary beings. God of the Gaps.

Kettle fallacy.

I'm out.

View: https://youtu.be/ytaf30wuLbQ?si=ifg5KI-SUvMgtxm3

Termination fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Denial of self fallacy.
RQAA

Lie.

You're done.

 

[ZenMode]

Kettle logic.

Kettle logic.

Termination fallacy.

Your resignation is accepted.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't get the answer you want and you get upset?

Kettle fallacy.

It is you playing word games.

Kettle fallacy.

Consciousness is not the same thing as rational.

No one said it was.

I am not required to adopt your mistaken understanding of English words.

Kettle fallacy.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are rational - but they are not conscious.

Go learn what 'rational' means and where the word is used.
No one is claiming AI is conscious.

If there is a higher rational agency which caused the universe it is undoubtedly beyond subjective human categories of intellect and intelligence.

An agency is not a division.
The Universe is not a cause.
The Universe is not sentient.

The Universe is unorganized.

 

[Into the Night]

Lie.

Denial of self fallacy.
Logic is not a lie.

You're done.

Termination fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Your resignation is accepted.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Alright, so you simply can't give a scientific explanation to the question.

​

Why should he? Science does not try to explain consciousness.
Science has no religion.

 

[Into the Night]

prefrontal cortex.

More than that!

Human beings use every section of the brain.

 

[Into the Night]

these are masons leading you to a being, that being is Satan.

He is not a Free Mason. He belongs to the Church of No God. He would never be accepted into the order.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. You are avoiding answering and I'm not interested in going round and round with someone being intentionally evasive.

You have been playing word games all along. On the one hand you say you're an atheist, and you're absolutely certain the universe does not have any rational cause or creator.

But then you say you don't know what caused the universe.

Which one is it? How can you be certain and uncertain at the same time?

You are saying that "something" created the universe and that something intentionally designed the universe with an uncountable number of laws, and equations to explain those laws, woven into the very fabric of that universe.

Explain how that something can do those things without consciousness.

Consciousness is a subjective human term which is poorly understood and poorly defined. I have too much science education to use poorly defined, poorly understood, inappropriate words when it comes to the physical universe.

If the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of math exist independently of time and space, if they exist in some kind of transcendent Platonic reality, if they are part and parcel of some eternal logos, then they can be the rational basis for a cause and effect relationship without having to try to shoehorn a subjective human word like consciousness into it.

I know how much you hate Christianity and you want to steer the topic towards the cartoonish idea of a sky daddy who has a white beard and wears a white robe.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

He is not a Free Mason. He belongs to the Church of No God. He would never be accepted into the order.

that's what masons say.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

More than that!

Human beings use every section of the brain.

I'm smarter than you. stfu and quit biting at my heels for no reason, little bitch.

 

[ZenMode]

You have been playing word games all along. On the one hand you say you're an atheist, and you're absolutely certain the universe does not have any rational cause or creator.

But then you say you don't know what caused the universe.

Which one is it? How can you be certain and uncertain at the same time?

There's no conflict here. I don't believe in Gods, because the evidence for gods is so lacking, and don't know how the universe came into existence.

You also don't know how the universe, and all of its characteristics, came into, but you give in to the same error, God of the gaps, the man has fallen into.

Consciousness is a subjective human term which is poorly understood and poorly defined. I have too much science education to use poorly defined, poorly understood, inappropriate words when it comes to the physical universe.

If the laws of physics, the laws of logic, the laws of math exist independently of time and space, if they exist in some kind of transcendent Platonic reality, if they are part and parcel of some eternal logos, then they can be the rational basis for a cause and effect relationship without having to try to shoehorn a subjective human word like consciousness into it.

More tap dancing. Could an object, like a rock, design and create the universe?

I know how much you hate Christianity and you want to steer the topic towards the cartoonish idea of a sky daddy who has a white beard and wears a white robe.

I nothing Christianity. I also nothing Harry Potter.

 

[Cypress]

There's no conflict here. I don't believe in Gods, because the evidence for gods is so lacking, and don't know how the universe came into existence.

You also don't know how the universe, and all of its characteristics, came into, but you give in to the same error, God of the gaps, the man has fallen into.



More tap dancing.

I nothing Christianity. I so nothing Harry Potter.

You really want this to be a debate about whether there is a magical guy in a white robe floating in the clouds.

I'll make that a quick debate by saying I don't believe in that.

You don't need any special experimental equipment, you don't need a PhD in physics, you don't need any math to answer a very simple question of logic:

Could inanimate and irrational causes be the most reasonable explanation for a mathematically rational and lawful universe?​

​

Or not?​

Could you please not keep dodging and just answer this very simple question?

 

[ZenMode]

You really want this to be a debate about whether there is a magical guy in a white robe floating in the clouds.

What you're referencing as creator of the universe is exactly the same concept as gods of various religions and superstitions.

I'll make that a quick debate by saying I don't believe in that.

But believe in something very much like it.

You don't need any special experimental equipment, you don't need a PhD in physics, you don't need any math to answer a very simple question of logic:

Could inanimate and irrational causes be the most reasonable explanation for a mathematically rational and lawful universe?​

Rational and lawful (laws created by a "god") are your opinion, not a fact.

​

Or not?​

Could you please not keep dodging and just answer this very simple question?

I have answered it. You insert adjectives into a description of the universe that are opinion. You then use that opinion to justify your beliefs in a conscious creator.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

no I didn't, fancy pants.

Of course you did Beav!