Get used to it.
Still aint even really started yet.
Yeah, I told you there were three parts so here starts #2.
I want people to understand
its just kike the guy at Brig Springs Baptist Church
and Custer UMC.
I agree with probably 97% of what he says.
Its the three %
that are so obviously false
OR
gets left out
that should be said,
that gives way to pushing ideology's
and shows an agenda being pushed
by the
rigid adherence
to scientific dogma/orthodoxy etc.
So today?
Once again?
THE MULTIVERSE.
(notice I didn't call it a hypothesis
or a theory
you'll see why here in a lil bit)
In what follows Professor rock star is merely trying to explain what different versions of this concept consist of. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I can find nowhere where he explicitly states the he be believes in any of this, just that he is trying to explain it. Even so? Leaving out big parts of the puzzle so to speak becomes problematic as it goes to agenda pushing as stated above.
So many ways to go about this but I have decided to FIRST just show what was said.
Then there will be a dissection of it that a English literature professor would be proud of.
Then were gonna flip it around and show you why this concept is being put forth these days.
Then there will be some misc. things thrown in afterwards.
Ready?
"The Multiverse Hypothesis
"There are theories now that suggest as I mentioned that there may be more than one universe and potentially an infinite number. It is a mind-boggling idea isn't it? And I say one extra thing, if thats true? Some of those theories say that what we call the constants of nature, so things like the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the mass of the particles can very from one universe to another.
And then you ask yourself the question, well why is our universe so perfect for life? Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life? Why is everything so beautifully balanced so that living things can exist?
The answer in these cases is because well every universe exist. Every possible combination of the laws of nature exist in different universes. So the reason we, we obviously see a universe that allows us to exist. So obviously we would ask the question how likely is that? Well? if there are an infinite number of (Them) universes, it is inevitable, because there is every kind of universe."
Oh Boy lol.
Here we go with the dissection of what was said along w some of what's being intentionally left out. Feel like I just got turned loose in an industrial kitchen with a brand new set of Ginsu knives lol.
Im going to do this a lil different, normally I wait till the end of a sentence to put my commentary in (In parenthesis) in this case since what was stated was already listed above Im going to place my commentary right after the word/phrase that elicited it and not at the end of the sentence/paragraph.
"The Multiverse Hypothesis..."
(Cant even get past the damn title lol,
if that done tell ya something lol.
a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
For a hypothesis to be a
"scientific"
hypothesis,
the scientific method requires
that one can test it.
(You can not test this nonsense.
So it's not scientific right from the start.
Did professor Rockstar mention any of that?
No, he didn't.)
"Scientists generally
base scientific hypotheses on
previous observations
that cannot satisfactorily be explained
with the available scientific theories.
Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory"
are often used interchangeably,
a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory."
"There are theories"
Wait a minute, we jumped from Hypothesis to Theories pretty quick with no explanation as to why, lets look at what the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is:
"A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true."
(You cant do research on something you cant observe,
Or? that you can not observe the effects of.
This is not complicated.
This is how dumb our world has gotten,
that this nonsense is passed off as scientific.)
"A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data."
(Just because a theory predicts something based on the data it shows?
"From a pre-existing state,
(Yeah how did that get there?)
inflation predicts
that a series of universes will be spawned as inflation continues,
with each one being completely disconnected from every other one,
separated by more inflating space."
Does not make it true!
You have to test it
and in this case you cant!)
Because of the rigors of experiment and control,
(Which you can not perform in these instances)
it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.)
"There are theories now ..."
(That's your whole key right there.
"NOW"
Where were they before now then?
What's the problem
that's trying to be solved here
w this Idea/concept?
Remember now
A scientific hypotheses
(Which the multiverse concept is not)
will try to explain:
"previous observations
that cannot satisfactorily be explained
with the available scientific theories."
But why
NOW?
Because they didn't need them before.
Why?
Because before
they weren't trying to rationalize away
WHAT THE OBSERVATIONAL DATA
SO CLEARLY SAYS THAT THEY DONT LIKE!
"that suggest as I mentioned that there may be more than one universe and potentially an infinite number."
"It is a mind-boggling idea isn't it?"
(Thats all it is,
an idea
and its not scientific
or researchable or testable.
THAT NEVER GETS BROUGHT UP!
Not by professor Rockstar or anybody else
promoting this garbage.)
"And I say one extra thing,
if that's true?"
(Yo dude?
How are you gonna prove anything
that you cant observe or test?
This passes as science these days?
You would have got laughed at when I was in school
and with good reason
for even suggesting such
untestable nonsense.)
"Some of those theories..."
One more time:
"A theory, on the other hand, is
a substantiated explanation
(substantiate definition:
to show something to be true,
or
to support a claim with facts:
(The only facts they got
are numbers on a piece of paper
from a mathematical theorem
that says it might be possible)
"for an occurrence."
(Definition:
the fact of something existing
or being found in a place or
under a particular set of conditions."
They don't even have an occurrence
Let alone facts
to support what they are saying.)
'I can hear them already Lucy:
"Yeah but inflation models suggest...'
Oh just shut up already.
There's no mathematical theorem that proves love exist
yet we know it does,
so the inverse of that has to be true as well,
that is, if a mathematical theorem cant prove that something exist that we know does?
Then things that mathematical theorems suggest exist?
Multiverse in this instance.
Very well may not exist either.
Math on paper doesn't prove anything
You need direct observation,
measurement and testing,
none of which are in play for this construct.
And just because a theory gets some things right?
Doesn't mean everything in the model is true either.
Once again Keep in mind
None of this is ever explained by the brainiacs pushing it,
and that's for a reason,
they are purposely being deceitful
not telling you
what they don't want you to know.
They think you are too stupid to see
what it is they are actually trying to do.)
"Some of those theories..."
(This is a scientist
calling theories
things that so obviously aren't?)
("a substantiated explanation
to support a claim with facts"
WHERE ARE THEY AT?)
"say that
what we call
the constants of nature,
so things like
the strength of gravity,
the speed of light,
the mass of the particles
can vary
from one universe to another."
(This is where I am just going to destroy this garbage today and I haven't taken this route before so bear with me as it may be a lil long.
"The constants of Nature...
so things like..."
(Things like what exactly?
And I mean be exact and precise about it
when you explain them
and how many there are.
Constants of nature
things like what?
And how many exactly?
Guess what?
There is no agreement between scientist
on even what the fundamental constants of nature are, let alone how many there are.
Number of fundamental constants
"The number of fundamental physical constants depends on the physical theory accepted as "fundamental". Currently, this is the theory of general relativity for gravitation and the Standard Model for electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear interactions and the matter fields. Between them, these theories account for a total of 19 independent fundamental constants. There is, however, no single "correct" way of enumerating them, AS IT IS A MATTER OR ARBITRARY CHOICE which quantities are considered "fundamental" and which as "derived". Uzan (Jean-Philippe) lists 22 "fundamental constants of our standard model" as follows...
(and if you want them you can follow the link and go to the site etc...)
So one says 19.
One says 22.
Another says 26.
(My buddy :-)
So there is no agreement
on what they are
let alone
how many exist.
And even with all that?
From the link above:
Ask Ethan: How many constants define our Universe?
"If you give a physicist
the laws of physics,
(Had to have predated it right?
Where did those come from?)
"the initial conditions of the Universe,"
(Had to have predated it right?
Again where did those come from?)
and the aforementioned 26 constants, they can successfully simulate and calculate predictions for any aspect of the Universe you like, to the limits of the probabilistic nature of outcomes.
The exceptions are few but important:
we still can’t explain
why there’s more matter than antimatter in the Universe,
how the hot Big Bang was set up by cosmic inflation,
why dark matter exists or what its properties are,
and why there is no CP-violation in the strong interactions."
Well Ill give ya a clue:
Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
especially belief in one god as creator of the universe,
intervening in it
and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."
I didn't even say anything about
the accelerating expansion of the universe
or the information in the DNA molecule.
THERE IS FAR MORE EVIDENCE
OF A TRANSCENDANT ENTITY HAVING CREATED
AND ACTIVELY INTREVIENING IN HIS CREATION
THAN THERE EVER WILL BE FOR A MULTIVERSE.)
"It’s an incredibly successful set of discoveries that we’ve made,
but our understanding of the cosmos
remains incomplete."
So?
Back to Professor Rockstar and
"The constants of Nature...
things like that."
Imagine presenting this
piece of shit case
to a neutral judge for a minute:
"Well you see your honor
we will show
that even though
we cant really agree on
what the physical constants
of the universe are,
nor can we agree
on how many there are,
and even if we could?
There's still plenty
that we couldn't explain.
And we have no physical evidence,
of what we are saying exist,
And we cant test or measure or observe
any non scientific hypothesis for it,
and we don't have any new particles
or dimensions,
(Things they need for this to be true and don't have
again, most proponents of a multiverse never bring this up.
Why?)
But we are sure
all those things that we cant agree on
what they are
and don't know how many there are
and even all of that don't solve
all the problems of our universe and our existence in it?
Judge: "Yes?"
"Well we are 100% certain
all of those
in every possible combination
that there ever could have been,
are, or ever will be, has to be in play.
And your honor?
All of those possible universes with all their different laws of nature have to have been spawned by the same inflation field,
even though we cant prove it exist
and we don't know
what brought it into existence
or set its boundary conditions
or how it works exactly"
Judge:
"Are you fucking stupid?
Cause it sure seems like it."
Back to Professor Rockstar:
"And then you ask yourself the question, well why is our universe so perfect for life? Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life? Why is everything so beautifully balanced so that living things can exist?"
(They are not denying any of that listed above.
They are merely proposing a nonscientific way
of working around it and multitudes are buying into it.)
And that was Mr.
"I don't see evidence of God"
talking right there?
Are you kidding me?
Dude?
If you don't know what you are looking for?
You'll never be able to find it.
I have to explain this to this guy?
To know this?
"Why is our universe so perfect for life? Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life? Why is everything so beautifully balanced so that living things can exist?"
And to try and explain it all away?
With some nonscientific concept?
THRY THINK YOU ARE STUPID.
These scientist know,
that all of this:
"why is our universe so perfect for life? Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life? Why is everything so beautifully balanced so that living things can exist?"
(and there's tons more, here's two:
(Why did the temp in the inflation period stop just short of dissolving everything?
Why were the conditions in the early universe so perfect
as to facilitate star formation?
That were needed to create the heavier elements?
That were needed to craet everything else?)
Theism.
Design implies a designer.
There is simply to much order
and precision and balance
to suggest some kind of
cosmic coincidence.
The more complicated something is?
The less likely it is do to chance.
They simply can not make
that argument any more.
Scientist own methods
have pushed them into a corner.
they didn't wanna be in.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
― Robert Jastrow
(Nasa scientist)
Exactly.
"The answer
in these cases ..."
(This is where I about blew a gasket,
WHAT CASES?
YOU DONT HAVE ANY!
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE,
NO SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS,
THAT CAN BE OBSERVED,
OR TESTED,
OR MEASURED,
NO THEORY!,
No nothing but an idea!
SO why professor rock star?
Are you now talking
like its a thing?
Before you said:
"that suggest"
and
"if that's true?"
Now?
Now you are presenting it
like it is factual.
"In these cases"
That?
That I got a big problem with.
Such is the subtlety of Satan my friends.
97% ON THE MONEY SO TO SPEAK,
SUCH THAT YOU DONT QUESTION
THE 3% FALSEHOOD THAT YOU SHOULD.
"is because well, every universe exist."
Every possible combination
of the laws of nature exist
in different universes.
All the possible laws of nature that:
scientist cant agree on what they are
or how many there are
or how they were all generated differently
from the same inflation field
that nobody has any idea
how it supposedly came into existence
creating different laws of nature
for an
infinite amount
of Universes?
that you have no evidence of,
nor any scientific hypothesis
that can be observed
tested and measured,
no
substantiated explanation
for shit
ect.
(Were the blue one.
We won the cosmic lottery they want you to think.
Belief in what you can not observe?
and what you can not prove?
Is a faith based belief system.
If that picture above is what you choose to believe?
Go ahead.
But don't laugh at me
when I got a faith based belief system
that is more coherent and complete
and has more scientific evidence
than your does.)
Except for just not liking what your own methods have proven:
"Why is our universe so perfect for life?
Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life?
Why is everything so beautifully balanced
so that living things can exist?"
(Why were the early conditions of the universe
so perfect as to create stars again?)
"So the reason we,
we obviously see a universe that allows us to exist.
So obviously we would ask the question
how likely is that?"
(And this is the whole thing
they know and don't like.
It is so miniscule a chance
for the universe to have formed
in the manner that it did?
As to be considered a miracle.
And that is what they do not like
and can not
no matter what they do or say
Disprove it.
The only means they have to do so
is a very unscientific explanation.
Know what the difference
between
an unscientific explanation/faith based
belief system
and a transcendent cause is?
NOTHING.
These guys are fine with one
(as long as it serves their purpose}
but then rule out the other
without ever even considering it
Even though it has a whole assortment
of evidence behind it.
"More matter than antimatter"
(Laws of nature say there shouldn't be
Shows a theistic entity acting upon his creation)
"How the hot Big Bang
was set up by cosmic inflation"
(Shows design)
"Why dark matter exists
or what its properties are"
"Why there is no CP-violation
in the strong interactions."
"the accelerating expansion of the universe"
(Shouldn't be,
gravity should be slowing it down)
The information in the DNA molecule.
(Actual physical evidence
of a designer.)
Literally the uncreated creators
instruction manual
for all life that has ever existed.
Complex instruction manuals
or computer software
("DNA is like a computer program
but far, far more advanced
than any software ever created."
Bill Gates)
simply do not create themselves.
Back to Professor Rockstar:
"Well? if there are an infinite number of them
(universes),
it is inevitable,
because there is every kind of universe."
(Its an unscientific work around
with absolutely zero evidence
that they can not ever prove
and its all because
all because they don't like
what their own methods
and observational data has shown:
"Why is our universe so perfect for life?
Why do stars make carbon and oxygen
and the elements that you need for life?
Why is everything
so beautifully balanced
so that living things can exist?"
I think I need to order
a new set of Ginsu Knives
I told you I was going to wear it out lol.
So in all seriousness
professor rockstar?
Why start off with qualifiers
"that suggest"
and
"if that's true?"
then move on to what seems to be
talking about realities:
"In these cases"
And not bring up any of the problems
that the concept of the multiverse creates?
("To much metaphysical baggage",
the one cosmologist said.
Good for you sir.)
(All the possible laws of nature that:
we cant agree on what they are
or how many there are
or how they were all generated differently
from the same inflation field
that nobody has any idea
how it supposedly came into existence
creating different laws of nature
for an infinite amount universes
that you have no evidence of,
nor any scientific hypothesis
that can be observed,
tested and measured,
no substantiated explanation for shit
=
No theory
Not even a scientific hypothesis.
Every last one of you pushing this nonsense
is doing a disservice to science:
Lee Smolin,
Don Page,
Brian Greene,
Max Tegmark,
Alan Guth,
Andrei Linde,
Michio Kaku,
David Deutsch,
Leonard Susskind,
Alexander Vilenkin,
Yasunori Nomura,
Raj Pathria,
Laura Mersini-Houghton,
Neil deGrasse Tyson,
Sean Carroll
AND YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELVES
LOOK LIKE IDIOTS
WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IT
IN THE PROCESS.
Okay now lets rework the order of it a lil bit
and then on to some other misc. points to be considered.
"And then you ask yourself the question, well why is our universe so perfect for life? Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life? Why is everything so beautifully balanced so that living things can exist?"
"There are theories now that suggest as I mentioned that there may be more than one universe and potentially an infinite number. It is a mind-boggling idea isn't it? And I say one extra thing, if that's true? Some of those theories say that what we call the constants of nature, so things like the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the mass of the particles can very from one universe to another.
The answer in these cases is because well every universe exist. Every possible combination of the laws of nature exist in different universes. So the reason we, we obviously see a universe that allows us to exist. So obviously we would ask the question how likely is that? Well? if there are an infinite number of (Them) universes, it is inevitable, because there is every kind of universe."
Remember:
Scientist
generally base
scientific hypotheses
on
"previous observations
that cannot satisfactorily be explained
with the available scientific theories."
They are just trying to work around all the evidence of design that they themselves have proven and now don't like the theistic implication of.
Plain and simple, I have been saying it for years and the fact that this non-scientific garbage is gaining traction? Tells you the end of an age is near. They are out of options except for nonscientific nonsense trying to explain away what they don't like.
Revelation 12:12
Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
If you cant understand this?
Well...
At least it aint my fault.
Im doin my job.
Here are some misc points that came up during the process of putting this together:
MISC Point #1
MISC NOTES ECT
How we know the Universe is 13.8 billion years old
(My Buddy :-)
"According to the theory of the hot Big Bang,
the Universe had a beginning.
Originally known as “a day without a yesterday,”
this is one of the most controversial, philosophically mind-blowing
pieces of information
we’ve come to accept
as part of the scientific history
of our Universe."
(apparently Mr Rockstar didn't get the email.)
Many detractors will reject it
as being too in-line
with certain religious texts,..."
Here is what professor rock star says
about holding
"extreme" positions,
you know, like ignoring the facts we know
because you don't personally like them philosophically
and how they match up with an ancient text and such:
"Absolute positions
are sort of a blinkered subset
of what's really happening
You cant understand what's going on
in the world by being an extremist."
(He was talking about Oppenheimer and communism vs libertarianism
but it applies in this instance here as well.)
(So?
Just because it lines up with certain religious text
is good enough reason to dismiss it?
Thats not an EXTREME posistion?
Rigid adherence to faith based dogma and orthodoxy
in spite of the facts right in front of you much?
Lets just go ahead and call the "detractors" here
what they really are being:
Bigot
/ˈbɪgət/
noun
plural bigots
Britannica Dictionary definition of
BIGOT
a person who
strongly and unfairly
dislikes other people, ideas, etc
Go get all the
haters/detractors/bigots
you know
and let them understand this:
There is a lot more
for you
to be upset about
than just the universe
having a beginning
as I am about to show you)
"while others —
perhaps more justifiably —
note that
in the modern context
of cosmic inflation,
the hot Big Bang only occurred
as the aftermath of a previous epoch."
Well guess what?
The same religious text
that the bigots have such a problem
with a creation event
"Being to in line with"
Also covers:
"the modern context
of cosmic inflation"
as well.
Sucks for yall.
Deal w it.
get over yourselfs
and your philosophical posistion
or perish.
Genesis 1:3
And God said,
“Let there be light,
and there was light."
There is your cosmic inflation.
The heat from the early rapid expansion
of the universe caused it.
See the white hot glow where it says
"Inflation" to the left on the diagram?
There is your light from
"In the beginning."
Then things go dark.
Dark Ages on the diagram
Then we get:
Genesis 1:14
And God said,
“Let there be lights
in the vault of the sky
to separate
the day from the night,
and let them serve as signs
to mark sacred times,
and days and years,
See where it says first stars?
Guess what?
Yeah light again.
After the cosmic dark ages.
Guess what else?
This is the only religious text
that has light in two separate instances
in its creation story.
Not one.
Let alone anything else
I am going to show Gods word
matches up with!
So?
Be bigoted all you want.
Truth don't give a fuck
what you think about it.
Inflation,
a Creation event
(Big Bang)
and
Star formation
all match up w Genesis
and absolutely
no other text.
Not one.
,
“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."
(Along with Robert Woodrow Wilson,
for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978.)
Oh but wait
there is plenty more
for all the bigots out there
to hate on:
Not only did time, space, energy and matter come into existence
in a continuum
in the instant of a creation event?
As far as we can tell?
Its HOW
time, space, energy and matter
HAD TO COME INTO EXHISTANCE!
You cant have any of the four pieces
without the other three.
It simply does not work any other way.
So its not just that
"time space energy and matter"
came into existence in a instant
ITS THAT THEY ALL HAD TOO!
Keep detracting,
a lot of good its going to do you.
Again.
One text gets this all right.
So thats
Inflation,
a Creation event,
(Big Bang)
Star formation,
and the manner in which
we understand
it had to have happened.
Again:
“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."
Arno Penzias
And?
You are never going to see past the cosmic inflation period either
Job 38:4-11
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
and prescribed limits for it
(This is God talking about his creation)
and set bars and doors,
and said,
‘Thus far shall you come,
and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves
be stayed’
(Scholars generally agree that the book of Job
was written between the 7th and 3rd centuries)
Ecclesiastes 3:11
God Set Eternity in the Heart of Mankind
He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, without the possibility that mankind will find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.
(Ecclesiastes was written between
450 BCE and 180 BCE.)
"Unfortunately, only the final tiny-fraction-of-a-second of inflation remains to be seen, with anything that happened before "inflated away," removing any hope we have of discovering our Universe's original beginnings."
Plus?
Here are five verses supporting the universe acceleration
and/reacceleration.
Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens,
who stretches them out . . .”
Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens . . .”
Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”
Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and
stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
Book of Jeremiah written around 600 BC (2600 years old)
Book of Isaiah written around 700 BC (2700 years old)
AND IF YOUR BIGOTED BRAIN
SIMPLY CANT HANDLE THE FACT
THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINING?
THEN LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING,
YOU ARE GOING TO ABSOLUTELY HATE
THE FUCKING ENDING,
WHICH IS CURRENTLY
PLAYING OUT
RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
Geoffery Hinton
considered
one of the
Godfathers of AI
"I think multimodal chatbots
are already having
subjective experiences."
Revelation 13:15
And he had power
to give life
unto the image
of the beast,
that the image
of the beast
should both
speak,
and cause that as many
as would not worship
the image of the beast
should be killed.
March 31st 2024
So there's a lot more
for the detractors
to detract from
than just the fact
that the universe had a beginning.
Thats
Inflation,
a Creation event,
(Big Bang)
Star formation,
and the manner in which
we understand
it had to have happened.
Boundary conditions
put in place
so that we will never know
what happened before,
plus an expanding universe
and?
the end being played out just like
Gods word said it would.
Why wouldn't it?
It got all the other things
in that list correct.
You cant even find light in two separate instances in any another religious text, let alone everything else just mentioned. To many coincidences? Just isn't capable of being a coincidence. I suggest yu wrap your heads around it.
(And I really don't care what you think about
sentient machines existing or not
They have been here for a while already.)
Being bigoted against ideas just because you don't like them or find them philosophically unappetizing etc.? Just isn't science (its supposed to be neutral)
and it certainly wont do a thing to save your soul.
The wrath of God is on its way, you can count on it.
MISC Points #2a and 2b.
2a:
Guy says he knows more about my religion
than I know about his science.
I beg to differ.
Actually?
I don't beg.
I know that aint the case.
Question becomes
why is it always Christianity
these guys try and shoot down
and not other faiths?
Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now,
the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence,
and violent people have been raiding it.
I'll tell you why
because Satan knows he already has
all the others in his back pocket.
There's simply no need to disprove them.
"So what happened was, when science discovers things, and you want to stay religious, or you want to continue to believe that the Bible is unerring, what you would do is you would say, "Well, let me go back to the Bible and reinterpret it." Then you'd say things like, "Oh, well they didn't really mean that literally. They meant that figuratively."
So, this whole sort of reinterpretation of the, how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded."
(The creation story in Genesis (and other things as demonstrated above) matches up with the science we know and other scientist have agreed, just not the ones who like seeing their faces on TV/social media etc. The creation story was never meant to be taken literally, it is a Hebrew parable set to poetry.
THAT IS
YOUR WRONGFULL REINTERPRETATION
Proving as I stated I already knew,
He doesn't know more about my faith,
than I do,
quite obviously.
1194–1270
"...was a leading medieval Jewish scholar, Catalan rabbi, philosopher, physician, kabbalist, and biblical commentator. He was raised, studied, and lived for most of his life in Girona, Catalonia. He is also considered to be an important figure in the re-establishment of the Jewish community in Jerusalem following its destruction by the Crusaders in 1099."
"His commentary on the creation of the world
describes the heavens and the earth
being created out of a noncorporeal substance:
"Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity.
The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word
bara (created).
Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition."
Explanation/translation?
God created the stuff,
that he ended up
making the stuff with.
And its exactly how it happened!
"...why is our universe so perfect for life?
Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life?"
This cat figured it out
back in the 1200's
just from reading the text of Genesis.
This is 100's of years
before the renaissance,
the age of enlightenment,
the development of
the scientific method etc.
God created the stuff that created the stars that gave him the material he wanted to create us.
So its not a reinterpretation.
IT IS THE CORRECT
interpretation.
And it was never meant
to be taken literally.
"But thats not your faith
thats Judism"
(Newsflash:
Christians see
the fulfillment/completion
of Jewish prophecies
in Jesus Christ.
So it applys)
Point 2b
Interviewer:
"Whats the most important thing that most of us dont know about the universe that we should?"
Neil DeGrasse Tyson:
"The atoms in your body, the nitrogen the iron, the carbon all of this are traceable to cosmic crucibles deep in the centers of stars, it manufactures them by thermonuclear fusion, the star explodes, scatters that enrichment into gas clouds that make the next generation of star systems such as we, so its not like when you are out in the universe looking up and you say yeah I'm alive and in this universe but I feel small, NO!, the universe is alive within you and you should feel large, that revelation that we are not poetically but literally stardust
BORDERS ON THE SPIRITUAL
and I think everyone, it is their duty to know that."
Thanks yo,
Christ said it some 2000 years ago:
JOHN 14:20
"At that day
ye shall know
that I am in my Father,
and ye in me,
and I in you."
I guess that's a wrong interpretation too?
Please...
Dude?
You suck as a theologian.
Stick to the TV shows and
social media platforms
about science
you'd be way better off.
(Ive been wanting to do that lil bit for a long long time BTW)
Point #3
Lets go back to professor
"not very credible"
anymore:
"We've sort of been demoted,
and we know now
that we are
not the center
of the universe anymore."
"People misunderstand the Big Bang. It was not an explosion, but an explosive expansion. That expansion started about 13.8 billion years ago, and it’s still going on today. The Universe may be infinite, but even if it is not, the observable part of it is just an incomprehensibly tiny part of the whole. Any spot in the Universe can be considered the center, with equal validity. Indeed, you may be the center of the Universe."
God comes back here.
In an ever expanding universe?
We are the center of the universe.
Revelation 21:3
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."
Why wouldn't God end up in the center of his creation?
Exactly how much does that guy gotta get wrong before he looses all credibility?
I reiterate:
He is not an astronomer
He is not an astro-physcist
He is not a cosmologist.
He is a particle physicist.
The last particle discovered
Maybe if he put more time
working in his field?
Instead of knowingly propagating falsehoods
to the masses via media?
Maybe he would have found more particles that he needs to support concepts/ideas like the multiverse.
(I aint even going to get into what he said about biology that I ran across last night. Suffice it to say, no scientist knows how life came from nonlife, let alone can they prove it. No origin of life research has ever been able to produce self replicating organisms and even if they ever did? Then there was an outside agent directing the process (the researchers) so go figure right? Evolution only explains what happened to it after it was here,
NOT HOW IT GOT HERE TO BEGIN WITH.
Dropped off on a meteorite?
Doesn't explain where it came from originally
Nor does "well aliens dropped it off" ect
Where did they come from originally etc...
It's just moving the problem
to a different place and time and solves/proves nothing.)
I have quite obviously
had enough of some of these peoples shit TBH.
Point #3
(and I really like him, and Ethan Siegel so don't go thinkin I got it in for all these individuals I don't.
But I don't particularly like the ones
going around preaching known falsehood
to their choir these days,
Nor the ones that think they are experts
on subject matter
that it is EASY to demonstrate
that they are not.)
"It is common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” perfectly tuned for life to exist. Once you frame the story this way, there are three possibilities:
(1) It’s just an accident
— that is, the Universe is what it is, and we are the ones who tell the story by measuring the constants of nature;
(The ones we cant agree on what they are?
Or how many there are?
Nice.
The universe has been proven to be
way to ordered and precise
to have been an accident,
and even professor Mr just lost his creditability knows so.
"...why is our universe so perfect for life? Why do stars make carbon and oxygen and the elements that you need for life? Why is everything so beautifully balanced so that living things can exist?"
Right from the start, if it got any hotter? (10 to the 27th power Kelvin in some models) it would have dissolved and not have been here. So why didn't it?
Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods,
especially belief in one god
as creator of the universe,
intervening in it
and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
And besides "we are the ones who tell the story by measuring the constants of nature" Please enough nonsense already:-). This one is easy to rule out. The more complex and ordered and precise something is? The less likely it is to have been an accident.
Too many coincidences isn't a coincidence,
in anything.
Plus?
The initial conditions of the universe were set up during Cosmic Inflation, so why
would an accident need initial conditions to have been set up?
(Remember, The early universe got just hot enough to create
what it needed to create and no more.
And?
The laws of nature?
I guess these are all an accident too?
So that's, initial conditions,
the creation event,
and the laws that govern
what was to come into existence
are all accidents?
Or just the creation event?
I'm a lil confused.
Not really.
None of it was an accident.
There's only one text that gets it right about how it came into existence.
(2) There is a “fine-tuner,” and what you call this “fine-tuner” is up to you, be it God or
(panpsychism is the view that the mind or a mind-like aspect
is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality.
It has been called:
" the idea of universal consciousness")
(see my conversation last week with philosopher Philip Goff), and the Universe’s purpose is to have intelligent life;
(It most certainly is the universe purpose,
nothing ever brought into existence was done so
without having a purpose behind it.
Our universe is designed in such a way that it can not have
"Nothing" in it. Even if its empty space?
Space is something.
"Nothing" only exist
outside the universe.
So the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God over panpsychism and heres how:
As demonstrated in Point #1 above
Gods own word supports:
An Inflationary period
of universe expansion
(Light on day one)
a Creation event
(Big Bang)
and
Star formation
(Light on day 4)
and the manner in which
we understand
it had to have happened.
Time, space, energy and matter all brought forth in a continuum in an instant.
Genesis 1:1
The Beginning
In the beginning
(Time)
God created
(Energy)
the heavens
(Space)
and the earth.
(Matter)
No other book even comes close
to getting that right.
Let alone everything else I am referencing here.
As well Gods word describes boundary conditions set up by the "fine tuner" if you will as exhibited byJob 38:4-11 and Ecclesiastes 3:11.
(Also listed in point #1)
Gods word also supports the scientific fact that we are in the universe and the universe is in us.
As well as its predictions for the future being proven true right in front of you today:
Life to the image of the beast,
sentient machines now among us.
So.
Ask yourself
with the rational,
logical intellect
that God gave you
Does
Have any of that?
Any?
Just one part?
The answer is so obviously
self evident at this point
as to not need an answer
for the question listed above.
AND besides?
Another big problem with
panpsychism
is this:
It only seeks to explain
the reality we are in,
it does nothing
to explain
how that reality
came into existence.
(3) we live in a multiverse, and our Universe just happens to be the one where things work out for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you had better embrace the multiverse.
As demonstrated,
It is nothing more than a faith based believe system
and my community's faith based believe system
has far more scientific evidence supporting it at this point in time
and that is due to a specific reason.
The time is drawing near.
And:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise,
as some understand slowness.
Instead he is patient with you,
not wanting anyone to perish,
but everyone to come to repentance.
This is why
he is making it so clear right now
why he created our universe and you.
"not wanting anyone to perish,
but everyone to come to repentance"
The multiverse idea
is already discredited.
And as my favorite atheist says:
There is far more
SCIENTIFIC evidence
supporting theism
than there is anything else:
Accident
Panpsychism
Multiverse
Deism
Pantheism
Naturalism
or
Materialism
for an explanation as to why the universe came into existence and what is its purpose is.
(See Yeah if you need to see just how easy it is to dismiss:
deism, naturalism,
materialism and pantheism)
The fact that the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of Theism tells you that its about to all come to an end and you had better start thinking about your belief system and what body of cohesive coherent evidence you have to support it.
SOME PEOPLE JUST DONT LIKE IT.
Well?
Tough shit.
Grow up.
Admit you were wrong.
Submit to your creator or perish.
and I love all these:
"Oh reason is going to
figure it all out some day" types.
Awesome.
Where did the reasoning come from then?
Let me guess, the same slime pit
that algae crawled out of t
hat started complex multicellular life?
Get a fuckin clue.
Youve been blinded by Satan.
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age
(Satan)
has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
so that they cannot see
the light of the gospel
that displays the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit
does not accept the things
that come from the Spirit of God
but considers them foolishness,
and cannot understand them
because they are discerned
only through the Spirit.
Reason alone is going to explain the 95% of the universe we don't know what it is made of or how it works?
Seems a lil...
Illogical doesnt it?
Us in the whopping 5% we get to experience
are going to just rationalize the other 95%?
Its gonna suck for these "reason only" types
way worse than they could ever imagine.
Its been said that pissing off important people doesn't end well most of the time.
Persecution, Imprisonment, Death, Execution etc.
Well what if you knew all of that ahead of time and didn't really care, cause you had the privilege
(and the responsibility
to share with others
that comes with it)
of seeing behind the curtain of this material world and catching a glimpse of the spiritual one?
I dont live in your world.
And you dont live in mine.
I dont force mine on you.
So please dont try and force yours on me.
We are simply not the same.
Ive been ready to die a long time ago.
cause
I KNOW
its all true.
You ready to die for your belief system?
Why or why not?
I CAN NOT
AND WILL NOT
EVER SHUT UP
ABOUT IT
UNTILL I DIE!
Proud to be destroying strongholds and principalities, in the name of the King of King and Lord of Lords the conquering Lion of the tribe of Judah, Lord God Almighty in the flesh
Jesus Christ of Nazarath.
I reiterate:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment