Religion II

[hcap]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/chr...rahams-gospel/

Christian website editor: Stephen Hawking was kept alive by Satan to counter Billy Graham’s gospel


According to the lead editor of the conservative Christian PNN News website, the late physicist Stephen Hawking was kept alive by Satanic forces to oppose Rev. Billy Graham’s teachings.

Hemant Mehta at Patheos’ The Friendly Atheist blog wrote Monday that Mike Shoesmith of the conservative website drew paralells between the lives and careers of Hawking and Graham — and said that they were linked by Satan.

https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatc...demonic-forces

How about applying the law of non contradiction here?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/chr...rahams-gospel/



https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatc...demonic-forces

How about applying the law of non contradiction here?

You don't take this stuff LITERALLY, do you? You're not confusing the map for the territory, are you?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What is "real" tends to become harder and harder for you to comprehend, stuck in your local human scale experience. Your worshipping of the law of non contradiction, if used as rigidly as you do, severly limits your thinking. For instance this rather simplistic comment from some reader on a philosophical website..."We deal with probability amplitudes- there can be probability amplitude that something exists at more than one place PRIOR to measurement. But it doesn't, in any way means something exists at two places. Possibility is not synonymous with Actuality." doers not apply to "quantum mechanics: entanglement". Does it?

https://www.space.com/37506-quantum-...shattered.html

How "blessed" we are to have someone on this thread who has extricated himself from the "human scale" and has attained to the status of a god. What should we call you: The Wizard of Baal? Or the Wiz of Smarts?

But then how could that be? After all you used the very LNC to invalidate itself.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You just don't understand the quantum level is too "fuzzy" to be certain of the classical law of non contradiction as sloppily as you use it.

However the quantum level is as real as the computer on your desk

Who is Sparky?
Ad hominem again no doubt

Then all rational communication is impossible with you since black could be white, good could be evil, evil could be good, wet could be dry, your mother could really be your father, your dog could be your horse, Obama could be the world's savior, all fish could walk on land, etc., etc. Without the laws of logic all becomes irrational and absurd, especially since there would be no objective way to distinguish between truth and falsehood, facts from fiction.

Definitely sounds like the world you live in...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm confident that it's a lot more than two. If you are going to play the OPINION card what would make your OPINION more valid that theirs?

I'm also confident that it's not very many. But we're getting into argumentum ad populum.. I'll simply say that the scientists's "opinions" are based on evidence whereas yours is based on wishful thinking. You have yet to prove that "atheistic materialism" is "self refuting." (Those were your words. Right?)

They couldn't and neither could you. That's the point. You are committing both the fallacy of False Dilemma (assuming that there are only two possibilities when there could be three or more) and the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (assuming that if one outcome cannot be proven then the other must be true.)

No, because quantum theory is the theory of the very small, and the universe would have been very small at 1.0E(-43) seconds, but it would have been very large at 1.0 second.

Name all the possibilities for the origin of the universe. (Material FROM Marvel Comics doesn't count.) Let me kick start the possibilities for you:

a) finite universe caused itself
b) infinite universe never had beginning nor will it ever end
c) this universe was caused by other universes
d) panspermia
e) an eternal, transcendent entity caused this universe to exist

Feel free to add. (I could add another but I don't want to steal your thunder.)

Also, I have proved that the MODEL of a finite universe is self-refuting. Just because you say you don't believe in this model doesn't mean that I haven't shown it be a patently absurd model.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, I have proved that the MODEL of a finite universe is self-refuting.

You have not. A proof takes more than you just saying you have proven it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You have not. A proof takes more than you just saying you have proven it.

I have proved it by showing how it violates the LNC.

Try to keep up.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have proved it by showing how it violates the LNC.

Argumentum ad nauseam (also known as an argument by repetition) is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Try to keep up.

Ad hominem!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Argumentum ad nauseam (also known as an argument by repetition) is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough.

Ad hominem!

I did demonstrate HOW it violated the LNC. Do you need me to hold you by your little hand and walk you through it the way I walked Hcap through the "Diane is and isn't my mother" problem by breaking each segment down of the LNC and applying it to the problem? Are you this dense? Or just obtuse? I mean really...what part of my 5736 didn't you get?

Here's the Law again: A thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

Here, I'll even kick-start the breakdown for you:

a) universe = a thing
b)
c)
d)
e)

Go ahead now, you finish it, Sparky. Show us that you have a least one low watt bulb burning in your attic. Show us that there is a spark of life in some of your brain cells.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I did demonstrate HOW it violated the LNC. Do you need me to hold you by your little hand and walk you through it the way I walked Hcap through the "Diane is and isn't my mother" problem by breaking each segment down of the LNC and applying it to the problem? Are you this dense? Or just obtuse? I mean really...what part of my 5736 didn't you get?

Here's the Law again: A thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.

Here, I'll even kick-start the breakdown for you:

a) universe = a thing
b)
c)
d)
e)

Go ahead now, you finish it, Sparky. Show us that you have a least one low watt bulb burning in your attic. Show us that there is a spark of life in some of your brain cells.

You use your meager understanding of what is "true" on the human scale, and try tu understand what is "true" on the scale of the very small and very big. In your case "MEAGER" is a huge understatement. Your lack of understanding of natural laws know now and refined since the 17th century handicaps you.

So, nor only do you limit yourself by projection of local conditions, even what you know about the local human scale natural laws is pitiful.

When one takes a tiny religious point of view about the world one becomes cosmically stuck. Looks like your scientific method you have claimed to know is stuck in the past, and part and parcel of your stuck-nens is erroneously using a wrongly applied sense of logic and law of non contradiction.

When the contradictory experimental evidence of the very small as compared to the human and very large scale was first discovered many of our greatest scientists went past many "laws of non contradiction" to try and understand the contradictory results. I mentioned Einstein and his objection to "spooky action at a distance" of quantum entanglement. Various attempts at a grand theory of everything were proposed. However until one is developed the universe itself appears contradictory. Somehow I find it difficult to believe a scientifically illiterate amateur physicist like you has solved it

Go ahead and solve the contradictions of quantum entanglement.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You use your meager understanding of what is "true" on the human scale, and try tu understand what is "true" on the scale of the very small and very big. In your case "MEAGER" is a huge understatement. Your lack of understanding of natural laws know now and refined since the 17th century handicaps you.

So, nor only do you limit yourself by projection of local conditions, even what you know about the local human scale natural laws is pitiful.

When one takes a tiny religious point of view about the world one becomes cosmically stuck. Looks like your scientific method you have claimed to know is stuck in the past, and part and parcel of your stuck-nens is erroneously using a wrongly applied sense of logic and law of non contradiction.

When the contradictory experimental evidence of the very small as compared to the human and very large scale was first discovered many of our greatest scientists went past many "laws of non contradiction" to try and understand the contradictory results. I mentioned Einstein and his objection to "spooky action at a distance" of quantum entanglement. Various attempts at a grand theory of everything were proposed. However until one is developed the universe itself appears contradictory. Somehow I find it difficult to believe a scientifically illiterate amateur physicist like you has solved it

Go ahead and solve the contradictions of quantum entanglement.

Yada, yada, yada. Spooky, try to stay focused. We're talking about the laws of logic which religion neither invented or systematized. Stay on point.

And by the way, Spooky, one can never understand a contradiction. Contradictions are irrational -- as irrational as your greatest scientists have attempted to understand contradictory results.

The water today is dry.

Wrap your mind around that and afterwards get back to us with a rational explanation.

But thanks for the belly laugh...

[hcap]

As usual total incoherent nonsense.

Care to explain the contradictions of quantum entanglement.?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ ossuary

[i]James the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62. A mid first century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears this inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (“Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua”)

James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in Judea in the first century C.E. Somewhat like Tom, Dick and Harry today. One source says that 1 man in 26 was named Jesus in first century Judea. A similar ratio probably held for the names James and Joseph. That means one man in 26 was named James. Of those one in 26 had a brother named Jesus. Of those one in 26 had a father named Joseph. That means one man in 17576 was named James, had a brother named Jesus and a father named Joseph. The historian Tacitus estimated the population of Israel was 600,000. That works out to 17 men satisfying the condition. Lifespans were short with most people dying by age 15 so there would be 6 generations in a century and 17 x 6 = 102 men fitting the criteria. The finding of a single ossuary proves nothing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

As usual total incoherent nonsense.

Care to explain the contradictions of quantum entanglement.?

Sure...as soon as you explain the contradiction in my last post.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The persecution of the Christian church, never happened.

It turns out that the first mention of Christians or Christianity from a secular source, i.e., a non-Christian source, is the letter from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan, written about 112 C.E. The descriptions of Christians as scapegoats for the great fire come entirely from Christian sources and may have never happened.

As for the "crimes of Christians" which were the subject of the letter, said crime was "unlawful assembly". Unlike the right to assembly that is guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution the Romans considered any assembly to be for treasonous purposes. To assemble legally the Romans required that you get a permit from the governor, and if such a permit was granted he could send a representative to monitor the proceedings. Pliny thought the penalty of death was too severe so he levied a fine (amount unknown). Anyone who stated that he was not a Christian (and many did so) were let off the hook. (This brings into the question the Christian claim that many died rather than renounce their religion, but that's a question for another time.)

After Pliny the earliest secular reports of Christian persecution date from the mid second century. The question remains whether such persecution was disproportionate compared to other groups. One such group was Roman Royalty and Romans with wealth. The emperors were paranoid and could, and often did, order the murder of friends, family, etc. and the seizure of their property. To paraphrase Shakespeare they would "for mere suspicion, act as if certain".