Into the Night
Contributor
Assumption of victory fallacy.it describes it.
I'm not a Scientism freak like cypress.
and AI output is impossible to monitor fully.
you're defeated, ignorant fascist fuckhound.
Cypress denies theories of science.
Assumption of victory fallacy.it describes it.
I'm not a Scientism freak like cypress.
and AI output is impossible to monitor fully.
you're defeated, ignorant fascist fuckhound.
So, you are blaming me for your hatred of tools?
you're an idiot.I'm still investigating and seeking.
So you do not believe the fundamental forces of the universe behave in a universally consistent, orderly, mathematical, and lawful way."Organized" and "lawful" is absolutely subjective,

The fact that nutjobs @Into the Night, @IBDaMann, and @Jerry Mathers agree with you hurts your case, not helps it.which is why multiple posters, me included, don't agree and can explain why.
The unified four fundamental laws of physics existed from the very moment of creation, at least earlier than a thousandth of a nanosecond after the origin point.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.
It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of science. As far as our best science tells us, the four fundamental forces of nature existed at the very beginning of the universe, even before matter like quarks and electrons did.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.
Tennis balls are following universal laws of mechanics and laws of conservation. These are universal properties of the comos. They are not subjective rules invented just for tennis balls.I see you moved away from "scientists" after you claimed science had no part in the discussion.
Mean nothing. Theirs is just an opinion as well.
Sure we would. We can create equations to explain most anything. See bucket of tennis balls example.
Science is the study of process. It describes. It does not ultimately explain. We have spent 500 years devising elaborate ways of making accurate predictions for what gravity does and how it behaves. But after 500 years, we still have no explanation for the origin of gravity, why matter distorts space time, nor why gravity manifests as a universally consistent mathematical relationship.It's all in the same ballpark.
If you're willing to ignore the multiple, specific examples, sure?
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.
and it doesn't fucking matter.Science is the study of process. It describes. It does not ultimately explain. We have spent 500 years devising elaborate ways of making accurate predictions what gravity does and how it behaves. But after 500 years, we still have no explanation for the origin of gravity, why matter distorts space time, nor why gravity manifests as a universally consistent mathematical relationship.
Science is the study of process. It describes. It does not ultimately explain. We have spent 500 years devising elaborate ways of making accurate predictions for what gravity does and how it behaves. But after 500 years, we still have no explanation for the origin of gravity, why matter distorts space time, nor why gravity manifests as a universally consistent mathematical relationship.
It matters to people who care about science and the pursuit of knowledge.and it doesn't fucking matter!![]()
no.It matters to people who care about science and the pursuit of knowledge.
Reread. He's not talking about babysitting anyone's ass.reread. I'm not babysitting your dumb ass.
AI isn't leveraged.lets give you another chance.
Is AI over-leveraged?
can you admit that, captain of lies?
I don't know what leverage means.
The Inverse Square Law is not Coulomb's Law.That's Maxwell's equations. I would have said Maxwell's equations if I wanted to write about that.
The inverse square law I had in mind when writing that is Columbs law for charged electrostatic particles.
Posting random equations doesn't mean anything, Cyborg.That is one on the classic inverse square laws of physics.
![]()
The Universe is not mapped.You're contradicting yourself. If the universe is mapped out in precise mathematical relationships, then that defies your claim that the universe is unorganized, random, arbitrary.
The Universe is not a law.These lawful relationships already existed in the universe billions of years before homo sapiens appeared. It took the rational minds of humans to discover the mathematical harmony of the cosmos.
.
All religions are your opinion.It's not an opinion.
The Universe is not mathematics.The universe is mathematical and lawful. Not arbitrary and random. The most famous physicists in history note that order is the overall impression one gets when one studies it scientifically.
The Universe is not the Earth.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.
The Universe is not a religion.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?
Yes you have. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!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.
So you don't believe in his God. That's fine. He doesn't believe in your's either.God of the gaps is a subjective term not rooted in anything real.
Science explains.Science does not explain anything. Science describes.
Science is not a buzzword.Teleological explanations has not been a concern of science.
What 'gap'?Therefore, there aren't any gaps that are rapidly closing. We do increase our knowledge of process using the scientific method.
The Universe is not an engine.The point is ,someone is the engineer of the Physical universe!
Now the Question, is that Engineer YHWH? AKA Allah? AKA Jesus?
All of the Above,none of the Above ,any one of All of the Above!?
no, mason, no.The point is ,someone is the engineer of the Physical universe!
Now the Question, is that Engineer YHWH? AKA Allah? AKA Jesus?
All of the Above,none of the Above ,any one of All of the Above!?
The Universe is not a construct.The preeminent 20th century theoretical physicist Paul Dirac famously said: "God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe".
Dirac was an atheist, but he was using God as a metaphor for how unexpected and incomprehensible the order and rational intelligibility of the universe is.
Search AssistThe point is ,someone is the engineer of the Physical universe!
Now the Question, is that Engineer YHWH? AKA Allah? AKA Jesus?
All of the Above,none of the Above ,any one of All of the Above!?
The Universe is not an engine.I sent the post to Cypress,not Dirac! Kind of a Cop out deflecting to Dirac! What's so hard of admitting the Universe has an Engineer,and that Organized Religion has mind fucked you from seeing that Engineer in the big Equation in the Sky?
Attempted proof by chant.I've already said about 26 times on this thread
The Universe is not mathematics.that a mathematically rational and fine-tuned universe logically requires a rational cause. I've thought that for most of my life.
You deny science.It matters to people who care about science and the pursuit of knowledge.