Archaeology of the New Testament

[ZenMode]

Explain how the ultimate first cause is conceivably scientifically testable.

Being scientifically testable now isn't the same as saying it's a scientific question. Where the "extra" gravity in the universe comes from may never be scientifically testable. That doesn't mean it's not a scientific question with a scientific answer.

You are just angry at the Bible.

Why would I be angry at a book that has done nothing to me? Making it about emotion is just trying to avoid the topic.

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

Obviously.

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.

Yes. As I've said several times, the universe does what it does and man attempts to explain it, often with equations, after the fact.

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've said multiple times, it is significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than manufacture fairytale beings as the answer.

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'.

I'm not just talking about the act of falling, I'm talking about all movement: the falling, the bouncing off the ground, some balls colliding with other balls and moving horizontally rather than vertically. A sufficiently educated person could explain, via math/physics, precisely why every ball moved as it did. That doesn't mean the movement was structured by a conscious being, right?

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've said multiple times, it is significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than manufacture fairytale creatures as the answer.

You are just angry at the Bible.

I have no feelings toward the Bible. Trying to make this about me is just deflection and avoidance of what I said.

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.

How AI can to be aware of the flaws changes absolutely nothing about the fact that the flaws exist. Again, trying to make this about me is just deflection and avoidance.

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.
.

This is just another attempt to avoid addressing the content of what I'm saying.

 

[Cypress]

Being scientifically testable now isn't the same as saying it's a scientific question. Where the "extra" gravity in the universe comes from may never be scientifically testable. That doesn't mean it's not a scientific question.

Why would I be angry at a book that has done nothing to me? Making it about emotion is just trying to avoid the topic.

Obviously.

Yes. As I've said several times, the universe does what it does and man attempts to explain it, often with equations, after the fact.

As I've said multiple times, it is significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than manufacture fairytale beings as the answer.

I'm not just talking about the act of falling, I'm talking about all movement: the falling, the bouncing off the ground, some balls colliding with other balls and moving horizontally rather than vertically. A sufficiently educated person could explain, via math/physics, precisely why every ball moved as it did. That doesn't mean the movement was structured by a conscious being, right?

As I've said multiple times, it is significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than manufacture fairytale creatures as the answer.


I have no feelings toward the Bible. Trying to make this about me is just deflection and avoidance of what I said.

How AI can to be aware of the flaws changes absolutely nothing about the fact that the flaws exist. Again, trying to make this about me is just deflection and avoidance.

This is just another attempt to avoid addressimg the content of what I'm saying.

The balls you keep writing about are acting under the influence of a universal vector field of acceleration which strictly manifests itself as an inverse square mathematical relationship.

All that time you thought the balls themselves were so important, it was actually this universal vector field of acceleration which was really the most important part of this physical process.

The universal vector field we named 'gravity' and which strictly manifests itself as an inverse square mathematical relationship has existed for 13.7 billion years. This vector field exists at every point in the universe.

It is not, as you claim, an arbitrary human invention.

 

[ZenMode]

The balls you keep writing about are acting under the influence of a universal vector field of acceleration which strictly manifests itself as an inverse square mathematical relationship.

All that time you thought the balls themselves were so important, it was actually this universal vector field of acceleration which was really the most important part of this physical process.

The universal vector field we named 'gravity' and which strictly manifests itself as an inverse square mathematical relationship has existed for 13.7 billion years. This vector field exists at every point in the universe.

It is not, as you claim, an arbitrary human invention.

Yes, that may all be true, but that wasn't the point of the example.

The point was that being able to explain every movement of every ball dropped off the roof, after the fact,(which is what you are doing as it relates to the universe) doesn't mean there was a conscious being who lawfully/rationally and logically orchestrated their movement.

 

[Cypress]

As I've said multiple times, it is significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than manufacture fairytale creatures as the answer.

You have more than enough information about the universe and life to at least choose to believe whether it's a good explanation that the rational, logical and lawful could somehow be caused by the irrational and inanimate...or not.

Choosing to not answer that very basic question is revealing in itself.

I have no feelings toward the Bible. Trying to make this about me is just deflection and avoidance of what I said.

The fact that you keep complaining about fairy tales and sky daddy wizards are obviously manifestations of your disappointment or resentment against the church your parents dragged you too.

There are many religious beliefs and systems which in no way conflict with physics, chemistry, or molecular biology

 

[Jerry Mathers]

The balls you keep writing about are acting under the influence of a universal vector field of acceleration which strictly manifests itself as an inverse square mathematical relationship.

All that time you thought the balls themselves were so important, it was actually this universal vector field of acceleration which was really the most important part of this physical process.

The universal vector field we named 'gravity' and which strictly manifests itself as an inverse square mathematical relationship has existed for 13.7 billion years. This vector field exists at every point in the universe.

It is not, as you claim, an arbitrary human invention.

measurement is not a field.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not just talking about the act of falling, I'm talking about all movement: the falling, the bouncing off the ground, some balls colliding with other balls and moving horizontally rather than vertically.

Those are all manifestations of the universal vector field of acceleration (gravity), the laws of energy conservation, and the universal laws of mechanics.

These laws and vector fields apply at every point in space, and are strictly defined by mathematical relationships. These laws and relationships were around 13 billion years before humans existed.

A sufficiently educated person could explain, via math/physics, precisely why every ball moved as it did. That doesn't mean the movement was structured by a conscious being, right?

It doesn't necessarily mean that.

But I have yet to hear why the best explanation for a rational and lawful universe is that it was caused by the irrational and inanimate. I've never seen the rational come from the irrational.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

But I have yet to hear why the best explanation for a rational and lawful universe is that is was caused by the irrational and inanimate. I've never seen the rational come from the irrational.

this is something only you say.

its your assertion.

 

[Cypress]

measurement is not a field!!

The universal vector field of acceleration we named gravity exists at every point in space, and it exists whether humans are around to measure it or not.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

The universal vector field of acceleration we named gravity exists at every point in space, and it exists whether humans are around to measure it or not.

gravity is a force.

you're a fucking idiot.

 

[ZenMode]

But I have yet to hear why the best explanation for a rational and lawful universe is that it was caused by the irrational and inanimate. I've never seen the rational come from the irrational.

Again, the claim that the universe is lawful and rational It is based on the fact that events in the universe can be explained, via some kind of mathematical equation, after the fact.

Would you argue that being able to explain all of the random movements of the tennis balls, after the fact, means that their movement was orchestrated by some kind of conscious being?

 

[Cypress]

gravity is a force!

Not exactly. 'Force' is an old fashioned and imprecise way of talking about it, though it's still suitable language for seventh graders. Einstein proved gravity is a three dimensional vector field of acceleration caused by mass deforming spacetime.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Not exactly. 'Force' is an old fashioned and imprecise way of talking about it, though it's suitable language for seventh graders. Einstein proved it is vector field of acceleration caused my mass deforming spacetime.

its a force.

this force does not exist at every point in space.

it exists differentially in space depending on the matter present in that space.

you're still an idiot.

 

[Cypress]

its a force!

It's fine to use the word force, but Einstein proved it's better to think about gravity as a geometry of spacetime.

this force does not exist at every point in space.

The vector field of gravity exists everywhere, though in places it's so weak that humans couldn't detect it.

it exists differentially in space depending on the matter present in that space!
you're still an idiot!

That's exactly why I specifically called gravity a vector field. A vector has both magnitude and directionality. At every point in space, the gravitational field will vary in magnitude and directionality. That's a vector field by definition.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

It's fine to use the word force, but Einstein proved it's better to think about gravity as a geometry of spacetime.

The vector field of gravity exists everywhere, though in places it's so weak that humans couldn't detect it.

That's exactly why I specifically called gravity a vector field. A vector has both magnitude and directionality. At every point in space, the gravitational field will vary in magnitude and directionality. That's a vector field by definition.

so my balls DO have a gravitational pull on your lips.

gross.

 

[Cypress]

so my balls DO have a gravitational pull on your lips.

gross.

I accept your tacit admission of defeat, after having debunked and discredited all your assertions about the physics of gravity.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

I accept your tacit admission of defeat, after having debunked and discredited all your assertions about the physics of gravity.

no.

not detectable = zero gravity.

you're a cretin.

 

[Cypress]

Again, the claim that the universe is lawful and rational It is based on the fact that events in the universe can be explained, via some kind of mathematical equation, after the fact.

The mathematical laws of physics and the universal constants were discovered by humans, and have existed for over 13.5 billion years.

The strict mathematical relationships and values did not require humans to even exist. The universal inverse square mathematical relationship of the gravitational field would still exist whether humans evolved from earlier primates or not.

Would you argue that being able to explain all of the random movements of the tennis balls, after the fact, means that their movement was orchestrated by some kind of conscious being?

The premise of your question is flawed.

The bouncing of balls is neither arbitrary nor random. In theory, if you knew all the forces acting on the ball (gravity, friction, air resistance, etc) you could precisely predict both its past and future trajectory.

I told you one thousand posts ago that I provisionally think the best explanation for a rational and lawful universe is some type of underlying rational agency. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the best explanation for the cause of a rational and lawful reality is the irrational and inanimate.

 

[ZenMode]

The bouncing of balls is neither arbitrary nor random. In theory, if you knew all the forces acting on the ball (gravity, friction, air resistance, etc) you could precisely predict both its past and future trajectory.

Nothing in the universe is actually random with enough information, but that's beside the point.

The point is that you wouldn't say, based on the ability to predict ahead of time or explaining after the fact, that the movement of the balls was the result of a conscious being orchestrating their movement. The balls are going to do what they're going to do once they're dumped out of the bucket. There's no higher power or conscious being determining their movement.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the best explanation for the cause of a rational and lawful reality is the irrational and inanimate.

this is your assertion.

nobody else says this.

its your idiotic strawman.

 

[Cypress]

this is your assertion!

nobody else says this!

There is only two choices, the rational or the irrational.

There is not a third, intermediate choice. One can't be only partly pregnant.

We can see the universe is rational and lawful. That seems to mean something. The cause of the rational and lawful is either something rational, or it's something irrational.