Archaeology of the New Testament

[Jerry Mathers]

You're such a softie.


Are hammers over-leveraged?

no.

now is AI over leveraged, you dodging fuckface?

 

[IBDaMann]

The point is ,someone is the engineer of the Physical universe!

... only if you assume "design" ... which is never assumed for random dust clouds.

All of the Above,none of the Above ,any one of All of the Above!?

Are you nonetheless assuming "design"?

 

[IBDaMann]

no. now is AI over leveraged, you dodging fuckface?

No. AI is just as "over-leveraged" as hammers or as any other tool.

Why do you hate tools?

 

[ZenMode]

It's not an opinion.

"Organized" and "lawful" is absolutely subjective, which is why multiple posters, me included, don't agree and can explain why.

The universe is mathematical and lawful. Not arbitrary and random.

There are two options: a) all of the laws and equations were woven into the fabric of the universe or b) man created the laws and the equations after the fact, which would mean there's was nothing inherent in the design.

You WANT to believe the universe was created with laws and equations to allow you to BELIEVE it was created by a god-like being.

The most famous physicists

I see you moved away from "scientists" after you claimed science had no part in the discussion.

in history note that order is the overall impression one gets when one studies it scientifically.

Mean nothing. Theirs is just an opinion as well.

If your worldview were actually true (universe is unorganized, random, arbitrary) we wouldn't even be able to so science. Science is predicated on the assumption that the universe is rationally intelligible and lawful.

Sure we would. We can create equations to explain most anything. See bucket of tennis balls example.

For about the tenth time, you keep indulging your anger at Christianity and keep coming back to it. What happened to traumatize you at the fundy church your parents dragged you to?

It's all in the same ballpark.

I haven't mentioned Christianity in this cosmological context. Einstein's Pantheism, Universalism, or Taoism could just as well be the framework for my cosmological arguments.

God of the gaps is a subjective term not rooted in anything real.

If you're willing to ignore the multiple, specific examples, sure?

Science does not explain anything. Science describes. Teleological explanations has not been a concern of science. Therefore, there aren't any gaps that are rapidly closing. We do increase our knowledge of process using the scientific method.

Whatever you want to call it, science, as it has with other things man was confused about, is working to answer the question of how the universe started. It may never be able to, but that doesn't mean you have to make up fairytale creatures.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

I've already said about 26 times on this thread that a mathematically rational and fine-tuned universe logically requires a rational cause. I've thought that for most of my life.

Any idea who or what that "rational cause " could be? Or are you still searching?

 

[Jerry Mathers]

No. AI is just as "over-leveraged" as hammers or as any other tool.

Why do you hate tools?

you have not researched your answers properly, dim bulb.

 

[IBDaMann]

you have not researched your answers properly, dim bulb.

So, you are blaming me for your hatred of tools?

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

... only if you assume "design" ... which is never assumed for random dust clouds.


Are you nonetheless assuming "design"?

I agree with Cypress that the Universe is in perfect mathematical balance ,from an Engineer! Cypress doesn't say who he thinks that Engineer is! I do say it's YHWH AKA Allah AKA The Great Spirit AKA Jesus .

 

[Jerry Mathers]

So, you are blaming me for your hatred of tools?

I'm saying you're ignorant of topics on which you imply knowledge claims.

 

[IBDaMann]

The inverse square law I had in mind when writing that is Columbs law for charged electrostatic particles. That is one on the classic inverse square laws of physics.​

But you wrote "electricity" which is an inexcusable error. One can only assume that you don't know of what you speak if you are confusing the two.

You're contradicting yourself.

That would be you.

If the universe is mapped out in precise mathematical relationships, then that defies your claim that the universe is unorganized, random, arbitrary.

... and we are once again right back to your ignorance of the word "random", and your bizarre delusion that nothing can be random in a deterministic universe.

These lawful relationships already existed in the universe billions of years before homo sapiens appeared.

We all assume so, but you don't know this.

It took the rational minds of humans to discover the mathematical harmony of the cosmos.

Determinism is not harmony. You don't know the meanings of any of the words you use.

 

[IBDaMann]

I agree with Cypress that the Universe is in perfect mathematical balance

... but you "agree" with gibberish. What you just wrote carries no meaning; it merely "sounds" pleasant. Mathematics is not an adjective for "balance". Do you also agree that you are not aware of any test of randomness that the universe somehow fails?

Cypress doesn't say who he thinks that Engineer is!

You are talking to someone who doesn't see any "design" in the universe, and you are unable to show any. Determinism is not design, and neither is a purely random distribution.

I do say it's YHWH AKA Allah AKA The Great Spirit AKA Jesus .

Too funny! You think Jesus was an Arabic moon deity!

 

[Cypress]

But you wrote "electricity" which is an inexcusable error!

Electric charges only create magnetic fields when they are moving. A stationary electric charge does not create a magnetic field.

The electromagnetic field is a special case of the electrostatic charge.

Since I wrote about an inverse square field, the clear implication for anyone who actually took physics is I was citing Colombs law for electrical charges

 

[IBDaMann]

Electric charges only create magnetic fields when they are moving.

You wrote "electricity." You don't understand the subject matter you pretend to address.

A stationary electric charge does not create a magnetic field.

Correct. Get back to the topic we were discussing.

The electromagnetic field is a special case of the electrostatic charge.

More importantly, it is not electricity. You have some 'splain'n to do, Lucy.

Since I wrote about an inverse square field, the clear implication

... is that you didn't mean what you wrote and that you didn't know what you meant.

You wrote "electricity." Bad move.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

... but you "agree" with gibberish. What you just wrote carries no meaning; it merely "sounds" pleasant. Mathematics is not an adjective for "balance". Do you also agree that you are not aware of any test of randomness that the universe somehow fails?


You are talking to someone who doesn't see any "design" in the universe, and you are unable to show any. Determinism is not design, and neither is a purely random distribution.


Too funny! You think Jesus was an Arabic moon deity!

I think Jews look at YHWH from Isaacs POV. I think Muslims look at Allah from Ishmael's POV. I think Gentile believers look at YHWH AKA Allah,from Jesus's POV!

 

[Jerry Mathers]

So, you are blaming me for your hatred of tools?

 

[Cypress]

You wrote "electricity"!

It's not my job to teach you high school level physics, unless you want to offer to pay me tuition.

A stationary magnetic field does not create an electric field. Only a moving magnetic field creates an electric field.
Same for stationary and moving electric charges.
An electromagnetic filed is the special case when you have a moving magnetic field creating an electric field, and vice versa.

That's precisely why I can talk about an electric field when I am alluding to the inverse square math of Colomb's law for electric charges.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

I think Jews look at YHWH from Isaacs POV. I think Muslims look at Allah from Ishmael's POV. I think Gentile believers look at YHWH AKA Allah,from Jesus's POV!

predominant Jewry today is rabbinic Judaism and focuses on the baylonian Talmud, the book of hate.

 

[Into the Night]

no.

my complaint is that AI's ou put will always be flawed as Per GODEL's paper, and as illustrated in reality, and there is too much to try to verify from outside the system.

you fucking ignorant monkey's ass.

What do you consider 'flawed'?
Godel has written several papers. Which one are you referring to? How does it define what you consider 'flawed'?
Reality is not an illustration.
What do you mean 'to verify'? Verify what?

 

[Into the Night]

we will accept more Zionism if you fucking Zionists quit trying to replace us in our country through immigrant elections.

Israel already exists, NoName.
Israel is not in the United States.

bank on it.

the art of the deal, ladies and goons, the art of the deal.......

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[Cypress]

Any idea who or what that "rational cause " could be? Or are you still searching?

I'm still investigating and seeking.