The Age of the Universe

[bhsmte]

Of course I can.If you notice my claim was from a book by the author of "The China Study". To be sure reductionism has huge commercial support and billions of dollars are made with its seductive logic but there is very little evidence that individuals components have any value at all. It is the sum total that makes the difference. Not the minute detail.

Doesn't matter what semantics you put on it. People will still ask you to support your claims.

 

[Michael]

Doesn't matter what semantics you put on it. People will still ask you to support your claims.

It really doesn't matter to the atheist however how you might go about supporting those claims. They will reject it all quite flippantly to suit themselves, even empirical concepts, with empirical correlations and empirical evidence. Meanwhile they'll sit there and claim to know they can peg an age on a universe that could be eternal for all we actually know. The only way they can even put an age on this universe is to attempt to explain that age based on *four* separate *supernatural external agents*.

Even a religion with but a *single* supernatural agent would be *four times better* than mainstream cosmology theory today.

In my experience, even the very concept of 'evidence' becomes entirely and *personally* subjective, right down to the single individual and their internal choices.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What evidence do you have that the gospels were written by the disciples?

The testimony of the early church fathers. I knew nothing about the Bible for the first 25 years of my life. When I did start to read the Bible I was very skeptical and I really did not trust anyone. I allowed the Holy Spirit of God to guide me and lead me I to the truth. Everyone has to discover God for themselves. You have to decide for yourself if Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. I can not make that determination for you. If we come to a different conclusion that is fine. I know what works for me and I assume you are able to determine what works for you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Doesn't matter what semantics you put on it. People will still ask you to support your claims.

Yep, that is why I mostly deal with what science can support and show evidence for.

 

[bhsmte]

The testimony of the early church fathers. I knew nothing about the Bible for the first 25 years of my life. When I did start to read the Bible I was very skeptical and I really did not trust anyone. I allowed the Holy Spirit of God to guide me and lead me I to the truth. Everyone has to discover God for themselves. You have to decide for yourself if Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. I can not make that determination for you. If we come to a different conclusion that is fine. I know what works for me and I assume you are able to determine what works for you.

It depends what one's motivations are.

Some go towards; "what works for them" or in other words, what is comforting to them. Others, peel back the layers, look for objectivity and search for what is most likely true, based on the available evidence.

You are free to agree with who you desire of course, but I have consumed the works of many NT scholars and historians, who study the NT for a living. There are some things these folks come to consensus on and one of them is; the gospels were penned by anonymous authors, around 40-70 years after Jesus died.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep, that is why I mostly deal with what science can support and show evidence for.

Did you do the same in regards to what scholars and historians can support with evidence in regards to the NT?

 

[Davian]

I did

Where?

At least my opinions

I am more interested in science.

Are they the same thing? Is your physical body the same exact thing as your awareness/consciousness?

I don't think of it as so. Digestion is not my stomach.

That's why I find the dark energy god to be so boring by the way. On the other hand I can actually *see* the thing that I'm calling "God".

I can call the tree outside my window "God", and I can see it. So what?

Observing the vast and intricate, often conflicting rationales for why these gods are indistinguishable from nothing can be fascinating.

Indeed <snip yet another false dichotomy>.

 

[Davian]

https://www.csun.edu/science/ref/reasoning/expertise/pattern-recognition.html



FYI, your aversion to using pattern recognition when you suits you is another great example of a completely *unscientific* bias you hold.

Pattern recognition is poor science. Do these lines look curved to you?

Curved lines

• Davian
• Jul 10, 2015

 

[bhsmte]

I knew the ignore feature had it's benefits.

 

[Michael]

It depends what one's motivations are.

Some go towards; "what works for them" or in other words, what is comforting to them. Others, peel back the layers, look for objectivity and search for what is most likely true, based on the available evidence.

You are free to agree with who you desire of course, but I have consumed the works of many NT scholars and historians, who study the NT for a living. There are some things these folks come to consensus on and one of them is; the gospels were penned by anonymous authors, around 40-70 years after Jesus died.

I'm not so sure about any major 'consensus', particularly on the Gospel of John:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved

The phrase the disciple whom Jesus loved (Greek: ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) or, in John 20:2, the Beloved Disciple (Greek: ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iēsous) is used six times in the Gospel of John,[1] but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. John 21:24 claims that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple.

Since the end of the 1st century, the Beloved Disciple has been considered to be John the Evangelist.[2] Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature (the Gospel of John, First, Second, and Third epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment. Some modern scholars now believe that he wrote none of them.[3] Opinions continue to be divided, however, and other renowned theological scholars continue to accept the traditional authorship. Colin G. Kruse states that since John the Evangelist has been named consistently in the writings of early church fathers, "it is hard to pass by this conclusion, despite widespread reluctance to accept it by many, but by no means all, modern scholars."[4] Thus, the true identity of the author of the Gospel of John remains a subject of considerable debate.

When you add in the fact that the entire content of both John 14 and John 17 could *only* have come from a first hand witness, *and* the information was accepted by the early Church, it's *highly* likely that the Apostle John, and/or his first generation students compiled that particular "Gospel".

The tone and content of the Gospel of John is *markedly* different than the content from the synoptic Gospels. There's still quite a bit of debate on that particular Gospel.

All of them are most likely *community* works, put together by early Churches, probably Churches that had regular visits to them by the early Apostles. The book of Acts even suggests there was a hierarchy going on with James as the head of the early Church.

 

[Michael]

I knew the ignore feature had it's benefits.

Much like the ignorance is bliss approach to life?

 

[Davian]

Since I quoted Jesus from the Bible talking about us being *one in God*, I've already done my part.

Jesus was a Panentheist? Won't everyone here be surprised.

You've yet to explain why Panentheism isn't a "biblical-type" representation of God.

lol. One is a good as the next, if they are all fictional.

 

[Loudmouth]

The testimony of the early church fathers.

Such as?

I knew nothing about the Bible for the first 25 years of my life. When I did start to read the Bible I was very skeptical and I really did not trust anyone. I allowed the Holy Spirit of God to guide me and lead me I to the truth. Everyone has to discover God for themselves. You have to decide for yourself if Matthew wrote the book of Matthew. I can not make that determination for you. If we come to a different conclusion that is fine. I know what works for me and I assume you are able to determine what works for you.

How did you know it was the Holy Spirit?

 

[Michael]

Where?

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

I listed over 10 studies since 2006 that falsified their baryonic mass estimates that they used in their landmark 2006 lensing study on 'dark matter', and/or that falsified their claims about exotic matter in a lab. That's an average of one major falsification per year for the past decade. I also listed two major studies that undermine their dark energy premise related to 'standard candles' that aren't actually "standard" as they first claimed. Then of course we have their Bicep2 inflation fiasco last year, and Planck data showing hemispheric variations that also falsify inflation theory claims.

I am more interested in science.

If that were actually true you would reject Hawking's claim about "net zero energy" universe based on *chemistry* alone, not to mention nearly every branch of physics.

I don't think of it as so. Digestion is not my stomach.

So we might only be able to observe a small portion of the whole organism for all I know.

I can call the tree outside my window "God", and I can see it. So what?

So now you have an empirical definition of the term to work with, and a potential *cause* of all life.

 

[Michael]

Jesus was a Panentheist? Won't everyone here be surprised.

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Would they?

lol. One is a good as the next, if they are all fictional.

The operative word is 'if'. The universe definitely exists. I think we both agree on at least that much. Lot's of theories about the universe are bound to be false, but one or more might be right.

 

[Michael]

Pattern recognition is poor science.

Why do all these science articles disagree with you?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=PEGgVZrIDpK0ogS7i6GwAw&ved=0CB8QgQMwAA

 

[Michael]

Such as?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

 

[Davian]

http<snip>

I meant, here in these forums

If that were actually true you would reject Hawking's claim about "net zero energy" universe based on *chemistry* alone, not to mention nearly every branch of physics.

<looks for substantiation of this opinion, so as to show it is not yet again a misrepresentation of the actual concept - see nothing>

So we might only be able to observe a small portion of the whole organism for all I know.

Category error. Seeing more or less of the stomach will not determine if it is digestion or not. One is a process, the other an object.

So now you have an empirical definition of the term to work with, and a potential *cause* of all life.

Why? You don't. That "potential" is only opinion.

 

[Davian]

John 17:


Would they?

From what I gather, yes.

The operative word is 'if'. The universe definitely exists.

You can move those goalposts pretty quick there.

 

[Davian]

Why do all these science articles disagree with you?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=PEGgVZrIDpK0ogS7i6GwAw&ved=0CB8QgQMwAA

There are ten articles on the first page.

Quote from each of them, all ten, where they disagree with me. Then we will move to page two.