Archaeology of the New Testament

[Cypress]

also called nothingness!!!

Nope. "Nothingness" does not have density, temperature, or spatial size.
'Nothingness' literally has nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

It's very convenient for you to equate what I've been talking about with your cartoon of a wizard in a white robe. I haven't asked you any questions about wizards, Viking gods, or a god of Abraham in a white robe.

The big bang is a scientific theory that explains how the universe started to expand.
It is not a theory of what actually caused the universe.
There is no scientific theory of first cause, and there never will be because it is a philosophical question.

I don't agree that first cause is strictly a philosophical question, but I see no reason to debate that now.

Science and religion are asking different questions.

Religion makes very specific claims that directly conflict with what we know about physics and biology.

You're ignoring the question of why matter and energy follow mathematically rational and lawful rules.

Nope. I addressed it multiple times. What you call a rational and lawful design based on mathematics is actually just writing equations to explain things after the fact. As I mentioned multiple times, I could drop a bucket of tennis balls off my roof and someone, with sufficient knowledge, could write an equation for every bound and movement of the balls. That doesn't mean the movement of the balls was the result of a creator's design.

Math is a system of pure logic. Surely you're not saying something as foolish as logic and rationality just suddenly appeared by chance from the inanimate and irrational.

No. I'm saying that logically explaining things after the fact doesn't mean that the thing being explained had an intelligent creator. Again, see tennis ball example.

Einstein was famously amazed that the universe is comprehensible, mathematical, rational.

Ok.

The fact that you just take it for granted that the universe is lawful and rationally intelligible just suggests your education was limited to rote memorization - and you never thought about the really deep questions of ultimate reality.

Bucket of tennis balls.

Science has not disproved religion.

It has repeatedly.

• The Bible claims that god flooded the world. There's no evidence that ever happened
• The Bible claims the earth is a few thousand years old. It's not.
• The Bible claims that the first two modern humans were zapped into existence in one location on Earth. That is not the case.
• Several religions claim that the Earth is the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it.
• The Bible makes claims about the human body's ability to function after being dead for 3 days. That's not possible.
• The Bible makes claims about the surface tension of water and claims it can support an adult male. It can't

Should I go on?

The fact that we can make accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy, and conservation tell you nothing about ultimate first cause, purpose, or meaning.

Meh. Ok.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both thought the rational intelligibility of the universe pointed to something really marvelous. For Newton, it was evidence of the Christian God. For Einstein it was a revelation of some type of universal Pantheism.

Great. A lot of people have thought a lot of things throughout history. Doesn't mean they're right.

You only are aware of "design flaws" because of some atheist article you read.

Nope, but even if you were right, that doesn't mean the flaws disappear. I could have read the flaws in sky writing. They're still flaws by a creator that YOU claim is so concerned about detail that it literally put rules into place to dictate how microscopic particles move.

Odd that a creator/god, with that level of detail, wouldn't have seen the many flaws in the design of humans.

Prior to that you took extreme delight in your eyesight and body when watching sunsets or playing golf. It didn't occur to you anything was seriously wrong.

The fact that I appreciate my ability to see also doesn't mean the human eye has a design flaw. The fact that I appreciate my ability to walk/move doesn't mean that the human spine and knees aren't flawed.

You are not thinking about the deepest level of physical reality, in which the universal physical constants and fundamental forces of physics converge at the edge of a razor blade to make complex atomic matter possible.
.

This is all just more misdirection. It simply doesn't make sense that your creator/god would make the mistakes I mentioned.

 

[Cypress]

what is the temperature of the "Planck state of reality"?

The temperature at Planck density is at the upper theoretical limit of known physics, around 10^30 Kelvin from what I remember.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

The temperature at Planck density is at the upper theoretical limit of known physics, around 10^30 Kelvin from what I remember.

so that's a whole universe crammed into a super dense hot hair?

sounds made up.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Nope. "Nothingness" does not have density, temperature, or spatial size.
'Nothingness' literally has nothing.

nothingess is often infinite and very hot.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

all nothingness is a new galaxy in a state of Planck.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

The Free State Of Planck.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

what provides the heat for the pre-universal Planck state build up?

is it god farts?

the universe is god's Dutch oven.



the smeller is the feller.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

does heat exist without a universe?

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Nope. "Nothingness" does not have density, temperature, or spatial size.
'Nothingness' literally has nothing.

I don't think heat can precede the universe itself.

 

[Into the Night]

RCAA

YARP

 

[Into the Night]

If you can't test it, it's not science.

This part is true.

Almost all the decisions and choices you make in life are based on reason, logic, inference, or intuition.

This part is not. You have already denied logic multiple times. You also provide little reasoning, preferring to preach and depend on buzzwords and paradoxes instead.

Almost none of the decisions you make in life are based on a scientific experiment.

Science is not an experiment.

You have sufficient information to tell me which of these two options makes more sense logically:

Either a rational and lawful universe was somehow caused by the irrational, inanimate, and immaterial. Or the rational and lawful can only be caused by the rational and purposeful.

Buzzword fallacies (rational, lawful, universe, cause, irrational, inanimate, immaterial, purposeful).
Try English. It works better.

I told you 1,000 posts ago that reason and logical inference inform me that there was more to reality than matter and energy, and that a rational and lawful universe must have some type of higher rational agency or organizing principle.

Argument from randU fallacy. You deny logic. Buzzword fallacies (reason, logic, reality, matter, energy, rational, lawful, universe, higher rational, agency, organizing principle).

The Universe is unorganized.

And you are militantly atheist and practice an extreme form of confirmation bias to support your worldview. It's obvious that your reading choices are based on what you already know beforehand are going to support your worldview.

Buzzword fallacies (militant atheist, extreme, form of confirmation bias). Try English. It works better.
His worldview is based on his reality and his religions.
Your worldview is based on your reality and your religions.

You are the same. The only thing that differs are your religions and, of course, your reality.
He is not an atheist.
Atheists are not 'militant'.

At least I have read some of the most important atheist intellectuals and authors of the 20th century.

He is not an atheist.

Until you read an article by some atheist complaining about how flawed our eyesight and joints were, if never occurred to you that anything was seriously wrong. So you are so committed to atheist belief systems that you are willing to believe an atheist article over your own intuition and daily experience of life.

He is not an atheist. Go learn what 'atheist' means.

 

[Into the Night]

That's the first correct thing you have said on this thread.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. At least you agree on that one.

It is correct that science only makes accurate predictions of the effects of gravity, of quantum fields, of dark matter. It explains how nature works.

There is no such thing as a 'quantum field'.
There is no prediction concerning 'dark matter'.

Science does not answer the deeper philosophical questions of ultimate cause or purpose.

Science is not philosophy.
Science has no theory about any 'ultimate cause' (whatever THAT means!).
Science has no theory about any 'ultimate purpose' (whatever THAT means!).

 

[Into the Night]

"Testing is the cornerstone of the scientific method, ensuring ideas are grounded in evidence rather than dogma. To be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable."

-National Institute of Health​

WRONG. It is not possible to prove any theory True. A theory of science must be testable to see if it is False. Science does not use any supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

A hypothesis is not a theory. A theory does not come out of a hypothesis. A hypothesis stems from a theory.
There is no test for a hypothesis.

 

[Into the Night]

but all science is not the scientific method.

hypothesizing is a preliminary stage of scientific thinking.

Science is not a method or procedure.
Science is not a hypothesis.
Science is not a method of thinking.

 

[Into the Night]

There is only the rational and the irrational.

Buzzword fallacies. Go learn what these mean and where they are used. YARP

There is no middle, intermediate option. One can't be just a little pregnant.

Cliche fallacy.

The question that keeps getting studiously avoided, is I'd like some to explain to me if it is reasonable and logical to believe the rational and lawful could be caused by the irrational, inanimate, and immaterial.

Buzzword fallacies (reason, logic, rational, lawful, irrational, inanimate, immaterial). Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

Speculation and informed guesswork are not unique to science. They happen in all human thought processes.

What is unique to science is that all scientific theories and hypothesis have to be testable. Otherwise, they are not science. They are just fancy, unsubstantiated guesses.

There is no such thing as a 'hypothesis of science'.
Science isn't 'substantiation'.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't say they were unique science.

I said they are scientific.



theories can be scientific yet untestable.

you're an idiot who only has word games.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable, that means it MUST be testable. That test must be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. A scientific theory by definition is a hypothesis that has been tested and confirmed....or one might say it was not falsified depending on the scientific lexicon one chooses to use.

Redefinition fallacy.
Science does not use 'confirmation'.
Science is not a hypothesis.
It is not possible to prove any theory True.
Science isn't a word game.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm talking about an untestable hypothesis.

Hypothesis are not testable.

that can exist and can be scientific.

Science is not any hypothesis.