Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

When you complain there are flaws, you are implying there is a bar to meet for an ideal, perfect, or flawless (choose your word) standard your mind has arbitrarily set up.

I don't see black holes, eyes, or wisdom teeth as flaws.

When I look around or study Earth and the universe I am awed by the spectacle, and marvel at the idea it even exists at all.

You look at Earth, life, the universe and you see flaw, mistake, and/or ugliness.

We have two different worldviews, and yours is supported by opinion and personal preference. Not by detached and dispassionate facts.

All your doing is listing a set of flaws from somebody you read on the internet decided somehow proved a universe pregnant with flaw, mistake, ugliness.

That's just a subjective worldview and a philosophical opinion.

Black holes, retinas, and mistakes in genetic replication at the level of the nucleus are unconvincing of the atheistic worldview - i.e., nothing exists but inanimate matter and energy.

I study physics and cosmology in some depth, and come away marveling at how the universe physical constants and net energy of balance of the universe converge on the edge of a razor to allow atomic matter and an enduring universe to even exist.
.

He is not an atheist.
You have already denied physics.
Natural constants are created by Man.
There is no such thing as 'net energy balance of the Universe'. Buzzword fallacy.
Cliche fallacy.
The Universe is not an atom.

The Universe is unorganized.

 

[Cypress]

The Universe is unorganized!

CalTech (California Institute of Technology):​

"The universe contains organized structures on all different scales, from small systems like the earth and our solar system, to galaxies that contain trillions of stars, and finally extremely large structures that contain billions of galaxies. How and why these organized structures formed and how they influence one another is a major focus of modern astrophysics."


https://cosmos.astro.caltech.edu/page/structure

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

So?
Did you know there are many religions that don't use any of it?

Which one is yours?

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

CalTech (California Institute of Technology):​

"The universe contains organized structures on all different scales, from small systems like the earth and our solar system, to galaxies that contain trillions of stars, and finally extremely large structures that contain billions of galaxies. How and why these organized structures formed and how they influence one another is a major focus of modern astrophysics."


https://cosmos.astro.caltech.edu/page/structure

They are all empty rocks! Earth is the stage

 

[Cypress]

No, it's not about perfection, though it should be since the all-powerful creator of everything has every option at his disposal.

It is about fine tuning away at LEAST the obvious, deadly flaws since your god, again, created a planet, in .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe, specifically to have a relationship with his creation - mankind.



You won't see anything as flaws. You don't see earthquakes and tsunamis, which literally kill your god's creation by the millions, as a flaw. You don't see the fact that our primary light source gives us cancer as a flaw. You don't see breathing and eating, which also kills your god's creation, as a flaw.

You, with a straight fact, will claim this godly fine tuning and then ignore ALL of the examples of how fine tuning is lacking and killing the very being that your god created the universe/earth to have a relationship with.



We all are....

I see them where they obviously exist. You don't see them despite the fact that they obviously exist. You do that because you want to believe in a god.

Says the person teaching a Masters Class in denial and confirmation bias.

I'm listing obvious flaws. Some I already knew about and others I found on the internet. They are all still valid flaws for people looking at the situation objectively.

Lots of paragraphs to deflect and explain away what you don't want to see.

I do not accept your premise that black holes, wisdom teeth, volcanoes, floods are diabolical flaws.

Your premise is completely based on subjective and self-centered human opinion.

I don't think the entire universe nor this planet were specifically made entirely for our benefit.

There's nothing particularly horrendous about black holes. We don't know enough about them to have an opinion. For all I know the gravitational energy of black holes play an integral part of the net energy balance of the universe.

Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, floods are an integral part of a living planet. If you want to live on a dead world, sign up for mission to Mars.

A living planet needs plate tectonics, which ensures nutrients are recycled, the earth's surface and atmosphere are rejuvenated, and that the sediment and soil are nourished and balanced. That means we're just going to have to live with volcanoes, earthquakes, and floods.

Moreover, humans make a choice of free will to live in flood plains, at the base of volcanoes, or in low lying coastal areas. There's almost zero chance a tsunami,, flood, earthquake, or volcano will kill you if you make sensible choices about living on high ground, choosing appropriate building and construction materials, and choosing safe distances from volcanoes.

Earthquakes and volcanoes are not inherently evil.
.

 

[Cypress]

They are all empty rocks! Earth is the stage

The cumulative gravitational field of the sun and planets in this solar system ensures earth has a stable orbit keeping us in the narrow range where liquid water can exist. A stable gas giant like Jupiter sweeps up and deflects incoming asteroids lowering the risk that earth would frequently be clobbered by asteroids and large meteors. The moon stabilizes Earth's rotation axis eliminating the chance of drastic and perhaps catastrophic variations in our climate. We are far enough away from the Galactic Center, and in a sparsely populated arm of the Galaxy such that we are pretty safe from getting cooked by gamma rays from nearby stars which supernova.

 

[IBDaMann]

A serious discussion that begins with you asking for the humans that were alive 300,000 years ago, right?

I simply turned your statement into a question, i.e. I was discussing what you had written.

One more time, what you had written.

If you recall, I asked what you were looking for with that request and THEN sarcastically asked if you wanted name and locations knowing that it would be impossible to provide it.

I responded that your suggestion would be fine. You then went ape-shit raving mad as you always do when it is pointed out that you said something stupid.

So, again, minus the sarcasm, what exactly are you looking for with your request?

Clarification of the apparently stupid assertion that you posted, e.g. your omniscience fallacy about the unobserved past. Would you give the make and model number of the time machine you used to verify the unobserved past? What about the time machine's calibration record and its engineering tolerances?

 

[ZenMode]

I do not accept your premise that black holes, wisdom teeth, volcanoes, floods are diabolical flaws.

Well, they're either accidents (flaws) or intentional. You can pick.

Your premise is completely based on subjective and self-centered human opinion.

My opinion is based on reality.

I don't think the entire universe nor this planet were specifically made entirely for our benefit.

Strawman.

There's nothing particularly horrendous about black holes. We don't know enough about them to have an opinion. For all I know the gravitational energy of black holes play an integral part of the net energy balance of the universe.

Not a coincidence that you focus on the least dangerous flaw.

Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, floods are an integral part of a living planet. If you want to live on a dead world, sign up for mission to Mars.

No they aren't. When you have unlimited options, as your God would, there are other options. You're in denial.

A living planet needs plate tectonics, which ensures nutrients are recycled, the earth's surface and atmosphere are rejuvenated, and that the sediment and soil are nourished and balanced. That means we're just going to have to live with volcanoes, earthquakes, and floods.

The planet your god made may need those things, but there's no reason your god had to design any of this how it did.

Moreover, humans make a choice of free will to live in flood plains, at the base of volcanoes, or in low lying coastal areas. There's almost zero chance a tsunami,, flood, earthquake, or volcano will kill you if you make sensible choices about living on high ground, choosing appropriate building and construction materials, and choosing safe distances from volcanoes.

Nice deflection! A little victim blaming is great!

Earthquakes and volcanoes are not inherently evil.
.

I never said they were.

 

[ZenMode]

I simply turned your statement into a question, i.e. I was discussing what you had written.

One more time, what you had written.


I responded that your suggestion would be fine. You then went ape-shit raving mad as you always do when it is pointed out that you said something stupid.


Clarification of the apparently stupid assertion that you posted, e.g. your omniscience fallacy about the unobserved past. Would you give the make and model number of the time machine you used to verify the unobserved past? What about the time machine's calibration record and its engineering tolerances?

Right, so what exactly sis you mean when you asked what humans had been around that long......meaning you are so uninform that you are lacking, among other things, in basic human evolutionary knowledge.

 

[IBDaMann]

Right, so what exactly sis you mean when ...

Nope. You are the one who is on the carpet to explain his omniscience fallacy. Get to it.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

The cumulative gravitational field of the sun and planets in this solar system ensures earth has a stable orbit keeping us in the narrow range where liquid water can exist. A stable gas giant like Jupiter sweeps up and deflects incoming asteroids lowering the risk that earth would frequently be clobbered by asteroids and large meteors. The moon stabilizes Earth's rotation axis eliminating the chance of drastic and perhaps catastrophic variations in our climate. We are far enough away from the Galactic Center, and in a sparsely populated arm of the Galaxy such that we are pretty safe from getting cooked by gamma rays from nearby stars which supernova.

Sounds complicated, Who controls all this?

 

[Cypress]

Sounds complicated,

The point is we don't exist on earth in a vacuum. We are intimately connected to the cosmos and to the other planetary bodies.

Who controls all this?

The laws of physics. What caused the laws of physics is a philosophical or theological question.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. You are the one who is on the carpet to explain his omniscience fallacy. Get to it.

Omniscience? There are two options here. One is that you have no intellectual curiosity and have never in your life learned about the history of mankind. The other one is that you are just playing dumb with your question.

I'll let you decide which of those is true.

 

[Cypress]

Well, they're either accidents (flaws) or intentional. You can pick.

Explain exactly, scientifically, and objectively why black holes and floods are accidents, mistakes, or diabolical flaws. I'm not interested in subjective opinion or self centered human self interest.

My opinion is based on reality.

Strawman.

Not a coincidence that you focus on the least dangerous flaw.

No they aren't. When you have unlimited options, as your God would, there are other options. You're in denial.

The planet your god made may need those things, but there's no reason your god had to design any of this how it did.

Black holes never killed a single human or animal.

Earthquakes and floods aren't dangerous to humans. Poorly constructed, shoddy buildings collapsing are what kill humans. Freely choosing to permanently live on flood plains are what damages human property and risk human life

Well, they're either accidents (flaws) or intentional. You can pick.

My opinion is based on reality.

Strawman.

Not a coincidence that you focus on the least dangerous flaw.

No they aren't. When you have unlimited options, as your God would, there are other options. You're in denial.

The planet your god made may need those things, but there's no reason your god had to design any of this how it did.

Nice deflection! A little victim blaming is great!

I never said they were.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that black holes, floods, earthquakes are diabolical flaws. You've only provided subjective opinion and self centered interest.
Many scientists think black holes are integral to the energy balance of the universe. And the Earth is a living planet, thankfully. A living planet is going to have to be tectonically active, and floods and volcanoes are absolutely necessary to rejuvenate atmosphere and soils.

Please explain scientifically how we could exist on a dead and inactive planet, where tectonic and hydrological forces do not exist to rejuvenate and nourish the landscape and atmosphere.

 

[ZenMode]

Please explain scientifically how we could exist on a dead and inactive planet, where tectonic and hydrological forces do not exist to rejuvenate and nourish the landscape and atmosphere.

Your claim is that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being that micro-designed the universe and everything in it, from scratch, from the ground up. This being literally designed a universe where everything exists as a solid, liquid or gas based on the movement of particles that are invisible to the human eye. In other words, this being didn't just take what was available and manipulate it to work a certain way. This being had to create neutrons, electrons and protons, then created the scientific laws by which those particles would interact. That is the level of detail you are claiming.

Atoms and all of their individual parts, are what we know as the basis for everything TODAY, but that didn't have to be the solution. The creator could have gone with a different option, right? The solution could have been one where protons, neutron and electrons never existed in favor of something completely different.

So, when you say "explain scientifically how we could exist on a dead and inactive planet" that doesn't make sense because it implies that the design of the Earth had to be one where the planet had to be filled with molten metal and had to have faults to function correctly.

That simply isn't the case according to you. If your creator designed the Earth with deadly faults and a core full of molten metal, it was by choice, not because it had to be. (Yes, the flooding from tsunamis - caused by earthquakes - kill people regardless of whether or not buildings exist). A completely different design could have not required those characteristics, or not required the existence of black holes or not required a weather solution that causes floods today and drought tomorrow. A different solution for procreation and passing our traits to our offspring , aka DNA, could have not been susceptible to mutations. DNA was the chosen option but the creator didn't have to use DNA. The creator could have used something completely flawless. That is the case with every feature of the universe, Earth, human body etc.

It would be like Henry Ford designing his car to operate with 4 wheels, but only gave it three wheels and saying "Well, that's just how it was designed, so that's how it has to be."

 

[Cypress]

Your claim is that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being that micro-designed the universe and everything in it, from scratch, from the ground up. This being literally designed a universe where everything exists as a solid, liquid or gas based on the movement of particles that are invisible to the human eye. In other words, this being didn't just take what was available and manipulate it to work a certain way. This being had to create neutrons, electrons and protons, then created the scientific laws by which those particles would interact. That is the level of detail you are claiming.

Atoms and all of their individual parts, are what we know as the basis for everything TODAY, but that didn't have to be the solution. The creator could have gone with a different option, right? The solution could have been one where protons, neutron and electrons never existed in favor of something completely different.

So, when you say "explain scientifically how we could exist on a dead and inactive planet" that doesn't make sense because it implies that the design of the Earth had to be one where the planet had to be filled with molten metal and had to have faults to function correctly.

That simply isn't the case according to you. If your creator designed the Earth with deadly faults and a core full of molten metal, it was by choice, not because it had to be. (Yes, the flooding from tsunamis - caused by earthquakes - kill people regardless of whether or not buildings exist). A completely different design could have not required those characteristics, or not required the existence of black holes or not required a weather solution that causes floods today and drought tomorrow. A different solution for procreation and passing our traits to our offspring , aka DNA, could have not been susceptible to mutations. DNA was the chosen option but the creator didn't have to use DNA.

^ Still no objective explanation for why black holes, floods, earthquakes are diabolical flaws or inherently bad.

Your statements are subjective and based on self-interest, aka the idea that everything in the universe must conform to the comfort and convenience of humans. Floods, earthquakes, wildfires, and volcanoes are absolutely necessary for a living planet, nourished soils, a rejuvenated atmosphere. Animals, plants, and the biosphere benefit.

If you want to see what life would look like on a dead, tectonically inactive planet, look at Mars, Mercury, Venus.

The creator could have used something completely flawless. That is the case with every feature of the universe, Earth, human body etc.

You previously complained you weren't making a case for perfection, but now you're demanding flawlessness.

But you can't even explain what flawlessness is supposed to look like.

The "God can do anything" argument is a fallacy. God cannot change the laws of logic or the laws of mathematic.

Sure he could have made us robots which could exist on a dead world. But what would be the point?