The Age of the Universe

[Davian]

Only in your mind. Only moving objects are *demonstrated* to cause photon redshift, whereas "space expansion" is a pure act of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab).

We need not go into the inadequacies of your lab.

 

[Michael]

We need not go into the inadequacies of your lab.

How ironic. Apparently your only 'beef' with the theory of God is the fact that God doesn't show up on command in the lab. On the other hand, you have *absolute faith* in a menagerie of supernatural constructs that are more impotent on Earth than most concepts of God. At least God is reported to have a tangible influence on humans on Earth throughout recorded human history, as well as in the present moment. Inflation, dark energy are apparently too impotent to *ever* be observed directly on Earth.

 

[Chriliman]

Why? It's actually quite common in "science", not just religion. Cause/effect relationships are often *assumed* rather than being empirically demonstrated, and many ideas begin by starting with an assumed premise, and working backwards. It's actually a *common* behavior in science.

He was implying that I just picked a truth and stuck to it no matter what, when in fact this is not what I've done. What I've done is deeply questioned everything about existence and have found a truth that makes sense. And for me that truth is Jesus Christ.

 

[Michael]

But your god notions are incompatible with mainstream cosmology, are they not?

Not really. The concept 'Let there be light' seems to be rather compatible with most Christian concepts of God, including the Catholic Priest that invented the idea. If all I cared about was 'confirmation' of my religious ideas, it would have been a *lot* easier to simply accept Lambda-CDM. Unfortunately my empirical preferences often conflict with my preconceived beliefs, regardless of whether they originated in 'religious' circles, or 'scientific' circles. M-theory seems about as '"out there' IMO as any 'supernatural' concept of God.

 

[Michael]

He was implying that I just picked a truth and stuck to it no matter what, when in fact this is not what I've done. What I've done is deeply questioned everything about existence and have found a truth that makes sense. And for me that truth is Jesus Christ.

I didn't actually make that assumption about you or your motives, Hitchslap did that. I simply noted that his criticism was moot (regardless of whether it's true or not) since half of all scientific beliefs (both proven and falsified) actually started out that way.

 

[Chriliman]

If you believe that to be the case, why are you here?

I'm here because you do not believe and I want you to experience the truth of God, but there comes a point where I must accept that God has it all handled. I know I can't force you to believe what I believe.

 

[Chriliman]

I didn't actually make that assumption about you or your motives, Hitchslap did that. I simply noted that his criticism was moot (regardless of whether it's true or not) since half of all scientific beliefs (both proven and falsified) actually started out that way.

Great, then I apologize for assuming you agreed with what HitchSlap was saying about my beliefs.

 

[Davian]

Not really. The concept 'Let there be light' seems to be rather compatible with most Christian concepts of God, including the Catholic Priest that invented the idea. If all I cared about was 'confirmation' of my religious ideas, it would have been a *lot* easier to simply accept Lambda-CDM. Unfortunately my empirical preferences often conflict with my preconceived beliefs, regardless of whether they originated in 'religious' circles, or 'scientific' circles. M-theory seems about as '"out there' IMO as any 'supernatural' concept of God.

You make any concept of god seem as good as the next.

Funnily, I would agree.

 

[Michael]

Great, then I apologize for assuming you agreed with what HitchSlap was saying about my beliefs.

As I tried to explain, I didn't actually agree with him about your personal motives in this case, but if you need an apology from me for some reason, you got it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do I have to demonstrate His existence, when I believe He'll eventually demonstrate His existence to you?

Because for two hundred thousand years of modern human existence, he hasn't yet.

 

[Davian]

I'm here because you do not believe and I want you to experience the truth of God, but there comes a point where I must accept that God has it all handled. I know I can't force you to believe what I believe.

If "truth" is "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality", why should it be so hard for you to demonstrate? Or by "truth", do you mean "opinion"?

 

[Chriliman]

As I tried to explain, I didn't actually agree with him about your personal motives in this case, but if you need an apology from me for some reason, you got it.

No apology needed, I understand now what you meant.

 

[Michael]

You make any concept of god seem as good as the next.

Funnily, I would agree.

No that actually isn't the case for me personally. I tend to prefer an *empirical* concept *regardless* of the topic, including the topic of God. Panetheism would in fact be my 'personal preference' as a result of my preference for empiricism and falsifiability.

If however we stick strictly to the 'scientific method', and we allow for *supernatural* entities as external agents, and we simply *assume* various cause/effect relationships, it really is six of one, half a dozen of the other IMO.

 

[HitchSlap]

He was implying that I just picked a truth and stuck to it no matter what, when in fact this is not what I've done. What I've done is deeply questioned everything about existence and have found a truth that makes sense. And for me that truth is Jesus Christ.

Sure it is. You've decided Jesus is real, accepting all evidence supporting your assumption, and reject all evidence to the contrary. This is as plain as day for anyone to see.

 

[Chriliman]

Because for two hundred thousand years of modern human existence, he hasn't yet.

I'm only 29 and he's demonstrated his existence to me. But of course it doesn't really matter how he demonstrates his existence to me because its a personal experience and it would require you to "believe" me.

 

[Davian]

Not actually isn't the case for me personally. I tend to prefer an *empirical* concept *regardless* of the topic, including the topic of God. Panetheism would in fact be my 'personal preference' as a result of my preference for empiricism and falsifiability.

If however we stick strictly to the 'scientific method', and we allow for *supernatural* entities as external agents, and we simply *assume* various cause/effect relationships, it really is six of one, half a dozen of the other IMO.

But "God" is a dud in the lab?

 

[Michael]

If "truth" is "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality", why should it be so hard for you to demonstrate? Or by "truth", do you mean "opinion"?

Is it "empirical truth" that 'space expansion' is a known cause of photon redshift, or is that particular claim about cause/effect relationships an "opinion" that happens to be popular at the moment? Define 'reality'.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm only 29 and he's demonstrated his existence to me. But of course it doesn't really matter how he demonstrates his existence to me because its a personal experience and it would require you to "believe" me.

How so? What demonstration did he provide such that caused you to assume his existence?

 

[Michael]

But "God" is a dud in the lab?

Not the God I worship and believe in. God *is* the lab, and the planet, the suns, the galaxies, and everything else that "shows up" in any lab, including awareness.

 

[Davian]

I'm only 29 and he's demonstrated his existence to me. But of course it doesn't really matter how he demonstrates his existence to me because its a personal experience and it would require you to "believe" me.

Of course. You may have only imagined the experience.