IBDaMann
Well-known member
* Incorrect grammar: you should have written "incorrectly" (adverb) instead of "wrong" (adjective).
* I don't recall having spelled "National Museum of Natural History"
* You still seem to have only pivots.
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
* I don't recall having spelled "National Museum of Natural History"
* You still seem to have only pivots.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible."
- Albert Einstein
IBDaMann
Well-known member
There is no such thing as "dark energy"; it is a scam crafted for the consumption of scientifically illiterate morons. Scientifically illiterate morons aren't aware of the most basic fundamentals, e.g. energy does not cause acceleration; only force causes acceleration.
Only the logically inept think there is such a thing as a proof of atheism.
Cosmologists and astrophysicists do not refer to the random dust cloud as being finely tuned. Any cosmologist or astrophysicist would realize immediately that you are not one of them.
You have not shown that a stochastic (random) dust cloud is imbued with anything beyond randomness that passes every test of randomness.
The deity you worship did what? That sounds stupid. Are you really 100 percent utterly convinced that the material, logical, and rational could somehow just suddenly appear from the immaterial, inanimate, and irrational? That's not coherent.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The random nature of the universe that you keep avoiding, so that you don't have to explain the existence of your deity, isn't going away.
It's a simple matter of abductive logic:
Was the rational caused by the rational?
Or did the rational come from the irrational?
Which one is the better explanation?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
It's a simple matter of presenting your own speculative beliefs as some sort of truth that was somehow logically deduced.
Dismissed.
What's your position on abiogenesis?
Does the complex come from the simple?
First, you have to explain why your subjective speculation is "the better" explanation.
Second, you have to explain why any subjective speculation is better than any other subjective speculation.
Third, you need to explain how the complex does not arise from the simple.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Maybe, maybe not.
YOU are claiming a universe that is well and intentionally designed, down to the molecular level. Why would such a finely tuned universe be initiated with an explosion that creates such a mess? Why would a finely tuned universe by 99.9999% uninhabitable? Why would a finely tuned universe need black holes? Why would a finely tuned universe be filled with deadly radiation and be full of stars ALL of which will eventually die out? Why would the ONE planet able to support life be so horribly designed in this "finely tuned" universe?
This isn't a discussion about atheism. This is a discussion about your claim of this finely tuned universe that is anything but finely tuned.
Why do you believe that the universe was designed with mathematical logic and properties rather than man has created math and is just explaining certain aspects of the universe after the fact, as they would explain the bouncing of tennis balls dropped off a roof?
As I said, we don't know. Are you 100% sure that the universe is actually so finely tuned and designed that it had to have been brought into existence by a conscious entity? Again, when you look around the universe, it looks like a disaster of mistakes.
So you don't think atheism can ever be shown to be true, that makes you an agnostic.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That's not my claim. My claim remains that you do not know what science and math are. You say really stupid shit just to "prove" your religious beliefs are thettled thienth. You believe in Global Warming and Climate Change as well, correct? You think that they are also "science", with "mathematical relationships" yes?
A "mathematical relationship" is a human conception. I realize now that you aren't intelligent enough to understand, and that you are too stupid to accept help, so the only option remaining is to mock you.
What are your favorite Climate prayers?
What is the coherent explanation for how your deity came to be?
What order do you see in randomness?
Why can't you answer any real questions?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
There is no such thing as dark energy ... unless, perhaps, it causes Climate Change! Is that what it does? Is there dark energy in the form of Climate forcings? Are dark energy reservoires actually "Climate Ground Zeroes"?
You might be onto something.
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% uninhabitable for terrestrial life.
That's nothing that a little black drywall can't fix.
That's all tied into the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% uninhabitability.
Trillions of stars, and none of them sporting a Dyson sphere.
Wait! Hold your horses for just one cotton-picking minute! The earth was designed perfectly by Climate, and human activity just had to waltz right on in and mess everything up. Earth didn't have a well-ordered, mathematically aligned tipping point until humans began raping Climate and robbing the ocean blind of its alkalinity. Isn't that right?
It can't be; Cypress doesn't even know what "atheism" means. Cypress doesn't understand half the words he is told to regurgitate.
Cypress doesn't understand what the word "random" means. He is operating under the impression that it means "well-ordered."
Cypress doesn't know what science and math are, and he is hoping you will teach him ... so he can claim that you didn't know until he taught you.
Cypress doesn't like that answer. He is working overtime to get everyone to accept his religious beliefs accepted as the "best explanation" and everything else as "incoherent." Of course, if you ask Cypress about how his deity came to be, he will give you the "incoherent" explanation as the "best" explanation. At this point, Cypress simply insists that his wild speculation, by virtue of having been declared the "best" explanation, is therefore absolute truth.
Cypress' argument is that it would be "incoherent" for the universe to come to be any other way, but that it is somehow not incoherent for his deity, who created the universe, to come to be in that same way.
Nope. It looks like the random dust cloud that it is. Referring to any part as a "mistake" implies a non-random dependency, and you would have to show that.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Let's just agree right now that you aren't intelligent enough to understand why this is a stupid statement.
Hint: You have to learn what atheism is.
Let's just agree right now that you are a gibbering idiot.
Hint: You have to learn that agnosticism has no place in a discussion on theism, or lack thereof.
The universal speed of light in a vacuum, the inverse square relationships of gravity, and the inverse square relationships of the electric field existed 13.5 billion years before the first homo sapiens existed.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
Per usual, rather than address the topic, you want to deflect.
Another big swing and miss.....
There is no maybe about the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that there is some physical cause for it.
It is both extraordinary and a legitimate philosophical question, that the universal physical constants converge at exactly the values needed for complex atomic matter to form and persist.
Complaining about black holes or neutron stars does nothing to sink that remarkable and fortuitous cascade of events.
The net energy balance of the universe is balanced on a razors edge, otherwise it would have collapsed in on itself in fractions of a second, or flown apart so rapidly atoms wouldn't have formed. If I had to guess, the gravitational energy of black holes play an integral role in the net energy balance of the universe
Atheism is making a truth claim just as much as the Bible thumpers. You have placed your faith in the philosophy of physical materialism, and that requires just as much justification as any other philosophical or theological view.
Man did not create the logical mathematical relationships of physics. We discovered them.
Your education obviously involved rote memorization of scientific and historical facts, and it never occurred to you to ask the deeper questions of why physical reality is the way it is.
You have to decide for yourself if it makes more sense for the material, logical, and rational to come from the immaterial and irrational.
Or if it sounds more reasonable that the logical and rational could only come from the rational.
Maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium describes the heat death of the universe. We are trillions of years away from maximum entropy.
ZenMode
Well-known member
But you are claiming that the design was intentional. The creation of a conscious being. Why would a being, who has that kind of ability and all options at its disposal, screw so many things up?
The entire basis of your claim of an intelligent creator is the complexity and fine tuning of the creation. The creation is flawed.... like, really flawed. The fact that we have figured out how to explain, mathematically, doesn't mean the creation, at every level, is full of flaws.
Again, YOU are claiming that the design was intentional. The creation of a conscious being. Why would a being, who has that kind of ability and all options at its disposal, screw so many things up?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are demonstrating your inability to understand the subject matter. You keep trying to reference things in the universe through human conceptual terms, completely unable to understand that the universe is not your conceptualization.
Once again, you have no idea what science is. I think you talk about science whenever you want other people's pity. One can't help but notice that you are still actively dodging and EVADING the issue of the completely random nature of the universe. Why is that?
What about the inverse square law in general? What about the randomness of the universe? How did your deity come to be in the first place?
Nope. There were no human conceptualizations prior to humanity.
Now, if you can find a way to describe Nature without resorting to human conceptualizations, you might find some common ground with rational adults.
Wait, is your deity a random dust cloud as well?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Fabrications cannot be deflected. As usual, you couldn't attack any actual argument or position of mine, so you attacked some fictitious fabrication of your own making.
Have you seen any good thermal forcings lately? I don't know if Climate Change has ended but Climate hasn't violated Stefan-Boltzmann in over seven months, can you believe it?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right, so humans have been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years and that detail wasn't just pulled from the "internet".
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Assume that all science is stipulated. You still don't know what science is. You still think that "random" means "well ordered." You still don't believe your own deity is coherent. You are one fucked-up bastard.
I have to give you a pass because I recognize that your scientific illiteracy has left you unaware of what the 0th Law of Thermodynamics states.
You really should read the 0th Law of Thermodynamics before you pretend to talk about thermodynamics.