Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[joelr]

The Tel el-Hammond site is of special interest to me. This hasn't yet met with peer review support. But if they found 'shocked quartz' then I would take that as a positive. Clearly something happened because earlier this area was quite fertile, then lay salt crusted and fallow till Greek-Roman times. Never heard of that before (of course, a lot of Mesopotamia was salt damaged but that's different)
I do recall the Alverez days when people ridiculed the idea of a meterorite causing the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Canaan was on the nose to the Hebrews, just as Hebrews were on the nose to Canaanites and Egyptians, and everyone else.

The issue here is that we are both rehashing boilerpoints from minimalist and maximalist positions. On the whole I take the view that the Abrahamic story till Jesus to be essentially historical. And there's tons of evidence that the world around these accounts was more or less as it's recorded - everything from the price of slaves to the existance of kings. What's to be contested is the thing we can't contest - the dealings of God with these people.

There isn't much support for Tel el-Hammond being a meteor.

Archaeologists are pointing out quite a few differences between real life and the stories.
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible


Also Daniel has strong evidence that it's a forgery.

As Professor Stavrakopoulou points out the OT was very fluid until the last few centuries.
Also Yahweh was quite different in the beginning. Her new work is about this:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Physicists are working on it" LOL.

What's funny about that?

Basically, this is just another way of saying "energy cannot be created nor destroyed", which is the first law of thermodynamics.

But you got problems...because...

1. The first law only comes into play AFTER the universe began to exist in the first place...so the question of origins is not negated.


2. You can't have an infinite amount of reallocations over an infinite amount of times. Logically impossible.

So either way, your logic fails.

You completely miss the point.
Your bare assertion of "everything that begins to exist...." isn't talking about just the origins of the universe.
It's talking about the origins of EVERYTHING - including all the stuff in the universe.

So that's what I replied to. You're handwaving it away by moving the goalpost of your very own assertion.

When things get tough, appeal to quantum physics to save the day!!!
But it doesn't, though.

What I told you, is a fact of quantum physics.
Your willful ignorance on the matter, is irrelevant.

Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect | Quanta Magazine
Quantum causality | Nature Physics
Quantum mechanics defies causal order, experiment confirms – Physics World
Causality in a quantum world (scitation.org)

I agree.

You say agree, yet you insist on invoking causality in an environment where no universe (and thus no causality) exists.

Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself, sir.

No.

You can't logically say the universe has a finite age, but then turn around and say that it is infinite (reallocations of matter).

I never said that. You should work on your reading comprehension skills.

What I actually said, and always have said, is that time / the universe is (or at least: seems) finite into the past.

It began at T = 0. And that was some 13.7 billion years ago. That's a finite amount of time.

True statements don't contradict each other...but false statements do...and yours...do.

1. claiming it does not make it so. Try to explain it.
2. I didn't make the statement you are accusing me off here.

"The universe has always existed".
"The universe is only 13.7 billion years old".

That is like saying..

I have already explained this to you. You're being extremely obtuse.
I shall repeat a 4th time.

The universe = space-time.
Time is an inherent part of the universe.
Whenever time was flowing, the universe existed.
Whenever the universe existed, time did also.
Always = for all of time.
Therefor "the universe always existed" is a true statement.

"I have always been married".
"I have always been single".

Fallacious...and disgusting.

The only disgusting thing here, is your blatant misrepresentation.

You just said the age of the universe is finite, though.

No.

I said the universe is finite into the past.
*mod edit*
It is finite into the past.

I don't know if it is finite or infinite into the future.
But, if we assume that the universe had a beginning at T = 0 (and it looks like a safe assumption), THEN the universe is finite into the past.

That does not contradict the statement that the universe has always existed, since "always" literally means "for all of time". And as explained over a dozen times now, time is an aspect of the universe.
If the universe exists, time exists.
If time exists, the universe exists.
There was no point in time when the universe did not exist.

Makes no sense.

Only because you insist on misrepresenting what I actually said and seemingly because you wish to refuse to acknowledge that time is an inherent aspect of the universe itself.

 

[PruePhillip]

There isn't much support for Tel el-Hammond being a meteor.

And as you know, there's tons of videos interpreting Daniel in the opposite direction.
One reason Maccabees is not included in the Jewish Tanakh - the holy text was closed after Babylon. Thinking of it as a fluid text till Jesus time is not correct.

Of interest to me was Daniel speaking of what became the Roman empire - this empire would destroy the temple, Jerusalem and Isael, and even kill the Messiah. This was puzzling to Jews who wanted a Messianic King who would rule the nations. Yet this is exactly what happened - Rome killed Jesus and destroyed Israel.
The dating of the Coming Messiah is also interesting but I am not qualified to address that. This book might be the book that speaks of Rome as one day falling yet would never fall (ie it became Roman Catholicism, the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman empire, even today where America, Russia, Italy and Germany all see themselves as the New Rome) But Babylon, during Babylonian times, would never be inhabited again - and it became a field of mud. Prophecy is another fascinating aspect of the bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is..

1. The BGV theorem stops it from being infinite.

Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia

First line of the article:


The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.

2. The second law of thermodynamics implies that it can't be infinite.

Nothing in thermodynamics stops the universe from continuing to expand indefinitely

And if that isn't enough..

3. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress stops it from being infinite.

How many times are you going to come back to this useless point?
I already told you the first time you mentioned it: a universe that is finite into the past does not have an "infinite regress" problem.

So, you are simply WRONG.

If I am, you have failed to demonstrate it. Arguing strawmen is not the way to show me wrong.

And those are three different lines of argumentation

None of which are actually valid objections to what I actually said.

, which means that even if you were to offer a sound critique to one, the others would still stand.

None of them stand. The first 2 is just you being wrong about BGV and thermodynamics and the third is a dead horse.

And come to think about it, I don't even think you can offer a sound critique to even one of the three.

Clearly you were wrong.

Quantum Physics of the Gaps.

Quantum physics of the gaps.

Nonsensical. In neither statement is QP used to fill any gap.
They are factual statements.

QM factually has all kind of things in it which are very unsettling / counter-intuitive to our human minds. Like entanglement etc.

And that quantum stuff is going to be involved in a "theory of everything", which we would need for cosmological origin explanation, is almost certainly going to involve quantum physics, because the obstacle that currently keeps us from such a theory, is the hard problem of unifying gravity with quantum physics.

Neither of these statements are "gap fillers".

Which models do that? Which model has empirically verifiable data that has trumped the standard big bang model?

They are hypothesis.
Also, they aren't going to trump the big bang model, because they aren't competing with the big bang model. The big bang model, is not a model that addresses origins.
The big bang is a model that deals with inflation / expansion of the universe.

The fine-tuning required for the universe/life to exist is that of an engineer...and engineers are intelligent.

Bare claim without evidence.
Your only reason for making this claim, is because that is what you already believe religiously.
If you disagree, I await your testable evidence with anticipation

Ok...so here is a challenge.

I challenge you explain the origins of my internet device...but the catch is; the answer that you provide has to exist within the device. No explanation which is external to the device can be given.

Go. Explain it.

You mean... like you wish to invoke causality to explain the universe?

The problem with that is that causality is dependend on temporal conditions. You need the universe for temporal conditions to exist. And pretty much the same is true for all of classical physics. It all depends on space and time existing.

Quantum mechanics, does not depend on that.

That is in fact the challenge in physics today: unify quantum physics, with classical physics (relativity).

Been there, done that.

Not to me.

The BGV theorem applies to virtually all viable models. And again, you have to do more than just offer possibilities.

Says the guy who wants to stuff a supernatural magician into every hole of scientific knowledge.

Mere possibilities ain't evidence. You have to provide actual EVIDENCE that your hypothesis is true

I agree.

What is your evidence for your designer again?

I already stated that, even under multiverse scenarios, they either..

1. Must have had a beginning.

2. Must have been fined-tuned.

There is no escape. You can continue trying to keep your multiverse dream alive, but it is dead.

I don't care one bit if a multi-verse exists or not. I'm not the one who's emotionally invested in any particular outcome here.

I think it's cute that you think you know so much better then actual cosmologists and theoretical physicsts who study this stuff for a living, though.

And clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Multi-verse models are "eternal". Quotes because the very notion of "time" in that context is problematic. Next to that, and ignoring the fact that the religious apologetic "fine tuning" argument is a cesspool of logical fallacies, there would be no need for any "tuning" either as it would pop an infinite amount of universe each with its own set of laws and constants (insofar as these are actually variable, because none of that is known)

Data such as?

The data that supports the theory from which the multi-verse is a prediction.
Like inflation theory.

The multiverse is purely speculative. There is no evidence supporting it.

False.

Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

We cannot see beyond the observable universe, and if you can't see beyond it, how do you know that anything is out there to begin with?

If you would read the posts you reply to, you'ld know.
In this thread alone, I explained it at least 4 times.

Read the article above.
People try to model the first moments of the big bang (and as you can read, these models are based on evidence and further testing produces more evidence in favor of it).
As it turns out, the math that describes that inflation, also spits out a multi-verse.

Nobody went out of his way to "model a multi-verse" in. What they were modeling was inflation. The model itself then predicts a multi-verse. Much like how Einstein wasn't modeling what a black hole was. He was modeling how gravity / light worked. That was his goal. Then after he was finished, the model spits out descriptions of black holes. Due to this, in fact, Einstein figured he had to be wrong somewhere, because he thought the idea of black holes was absurd.

So that is what is going on here.

Somehow, I don't think you will absord this information.
I think that within a post or two, you will be back making the same false claims.

Spirits aren't something you can put in a test tube.

Right, so you are exempt from evidence and supporting your claims?
How about that. That comes as such a surprise to me.

 

[PruePhillip]

Right, so you are exempt from evidence and supporting your claims?

Now we just have to work out WHY it all happened. Nature abhors a vacuum, yes, but nature has a reason for everything it does. Even things done due to probability still have a reason - the reason being the probability itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now we just have to work out WHY it all happened.

Why do you assume that a "why" exists?
Sounds like a loaded question

Nature abhors a vacuum, yes, but nature has a reason for everything it does. Even things done due to probability still have a reason - the reason being the probability itself.

You should be careful with this terminology.

For example: "what's the reason that the rock fell down from the slope?"

The answer would be an explanation which might for example involve the fact that it rained which eroded some sand against which the rock was resting, due to which it became unstable and eventually fell down because the sand left wasn't enough to support it so it collapsed under the weight of the rock. So the answer to the "why?" question here, is just an explanation of the mechanics that made the thing occur.

There is no "purpose" or "pre-planned intention" there. Just physics and objects with mass influencing one another.

And I have a feeling that your "why" question in the beginning of your post, IS asking about "purpose" and "pre-planned intention"... Am I right?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why do you assume that a "why" exists?
Sounds like a loaded question



You should be careful with this terminology.

For example: "what's the reason that the rock fell down from the slope?"

The answer would be an explanation which might for example involve the fact that it rained which eroded some sand against which the rock was resting, due to which it became unstable and eventually fell down because the sand left wasn't enough to support it so it collapsed under the weight of the rock. So the answer to the "why?" question here, is just an explanation of the mechanics that made the thing occur.

There is no "purpose" or "pre-planned intention" there. Just physics and objects with mass influencing one another.

And I have a feeling that your "why" question in the beginning of your post, IS asking about "purpose" and "pre-planned intention"... Am I right?

The rock fell due to varous physical factors. There's your 'reason.' But then there's reason of why there's gravity etc and there's your SUPER REASON. But ultimately you reach the SUPER DUPER REASON, the ultra, final reason it all began. To say the universe sprang out of NOTHING, WITHOUT PHYSICAL LAWS AND FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER is more absurd than saying an entity or intelligence OUTSIDE of it all created it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rock fell due to varous physical factors. There's your 'reason.' But then there's reason of why there's gravity etc and there's your SUPER REASON.

I don't see what the point is of putting this emphasis on "SUPER REASON", or what the "super" even stands for. What are you trying to convey?

Yes, gravity has an explanation.
How the rock ended up resting on that bit of sand also has an explanation.
How the sand ended up there also.
How the rock formed, perhaps even millions of years earlier, also has an explanation.
The very atoms that make up the rock also have an explanation: they were forged through fusion in the core of stars, or during super novae, millions of lightyears away and billion of years ago. How they end up together in that rock also has an explanation. A very very long one.

You can go on and on like this.

But ultimately you reach the SUPER DUPER REASON, the ultra, final reason it all began. To say the universe sprang out of NOTHING, WITHOUT PHYSICAL LAWS AND FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER is more absurd than saying an entity or intelligence OUTSIDE of it all created it.

Who says there are no laws governing the process of how universes come about?
Laws that depend on the universe existing obviously didn't exist.
And again with the ambiguous terms "for no reason". Reason in what sense?

If in the sense of "purpose" and "pre-planned intention" - most things that happen are of that kind. There was a big storm yesterday in my village. There was no "pre-planned intention" or "purpose" involved. Storms just happen when conditions make it happen. Just like rock will fall down the slope if the integrity of the bit of sand it rests against is compromised one way or the other.

So it's not like there are no precedents of such.
Why wouldn't there be processes or environments where conditions simply produce universes, much like there are conditions that produce falling rocks or storms?

I don't see how you can rule such out with but a handwave.
I see even less how you think you can then inject an unexplained, undetectable, unsupportable "intelligence" as if that explains anything.

So, in summary...

1. nobody is saying that universes spring into existence without any type of laws governing such process
2. the "reason" such occurs, would be an explanation of how that process works.
3. there is no evidence to suggest that this "reason" was pre-planned with intention / purpose.
4. things happen without intentionality ALL THE TIME. The vast majority of things that happen, happen without intention in fact. Instead, they are just the result of blind natural forces and matter interacting in an expanding space-time continuum.

5. there is no evidence or reason to inject an undetectable, undemonstrable, unsupportable "intelligence" into this.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

No, you didn't.
You just restated your bare assertions and didn't address the points raised at all.

Then you and I apparently disagree on what was done.

Inventing imaginary eternal bowling balls on cushions while ignoring gravity to try and argue against causality is not going to cut it.

Yeah, the invention of the imaginary eternal bowling ball is about as imaginary as the cat in Schrodinger's thought experiment which involves a cat in a box.

The eternal ball is a hypothetical meant to drive home a bigger point...a point of which you have not and cannot debunk/refute and as far as im concerned, it still stands.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Not quite true.

First of all, it assumes that spacetime is accurately described by a Lorentzian metric and that the geodesics of said metric are relevant for the physics. In essence, this is an assumption that classical physics is operative and would be violated in a full quantum theory of gravity (as Guth, the G in the paper, points out elsewhere).

LOL.

This is like saying "The theory will be violated if a viable model is proposed which has an average Hubble expansion rate of less than 0".

Ok well, do some science and provide the model, then.

Until then, all you have are speculative possibilities, and speculative possibilities are not evidence.

That, followed by the fact that cosmologists have been scrambling to come up with a violator models of the theory goes to show how strong the theorems implications are.

They did the same thing with the Standard Model of the big bang...which is where the Steady State and Oscillating models came from.

Now, if you disagree with Vilenkin, then take up with him.

Second, Vilenkin said in his published work that only one condition needs to be met, and that is that the average H expansion is greater than 0...and virtually all models meet this requirement.

In fact, Vilenkin ALSO said that they didn't even presuppose that gravity was described by Einsteins equations...why? Because that is how "general" the theorem is...even if the equations were modified, the theorem would still hold.

Second, it has a particular definition of the Hubble parameter for inhomogeneous and anisotropic universes. The positivity of this parameter is unclear in general.

Take that up with Vilenkin.

If your above critique has the weight that you think it has, then all cosmologists would need to do is regurgitate your critique and that would be the end of it...but instead, they are kept up late at night trying to come up with cosmological models to negate the theorem, which means it goes far beyond your little critique here.

Third, it only shows that individual geodesics are finite into the past. it does NOT show that the universe as a whole is finite into the past.

Um, yes it does.

It applies to multiverses and any pre-big bang scenarios...which is indeed included as the "universe as a whole".

Multiverses and higher dimensions are share the same physics and natural law, and are considered part of the universe as a whole.

So, yes, the BGV theorem is interesting and places limits on which classical expanding universe scenarios are reasonable. In particular 'eternal inflation' scenarios are excluded. But these are all semi-classical theories, relying on a classical description of gravity. This is *certainly* wrong at sufficiently energetic scales.

False. Guth has been on record for saying eternal inflation models MUST have had a beginning. Vilenkin has said the same thing...and both have said so as it particularly pertains to ETERNAL INFLATION SCENARIOS.

So, the BGV theorem shows that in a semi-classical universe, and a geodesic along which a particular Hubble parameter is increasing on average, that particular geodesic is finite into the past.

Yeah, and "that particular geodesic" is our particular geodesic.

This does NOT imply that the universe as a whole has a beginning (even in the semi-classical universes).

As I keep stressing, the theorem applies to all known conceivable models...string theories, multiverses, all inflationary models, bouncing universes, higher dimensions, etc.

Yes, it is that powerful of a theorem.

It also does NOT apply to scenarios involving quantum gravity (which is certain to be necessary at some point) since it depends on a semi-classical formulation.

Please, name one quantum theory of cosmology which does NOT feature linear temporal ordering...because all the ones that do fall under the theorem.

All other ones may fall for one reason or another but either way, as mentioned before, there is no evidence supporting them anyway...so no need in speaking on things that don't exist.

Finally, even *if* it was shown that the universe as a whole has a geodesic singularity in the past, that in NO way implies anything about it being 'created' or even being 'caused'. That is a completely separate argument than the BGV theorem and fails for other reasons.

Which is fine, considering the fact that the KCA or the BGV theorem makes no attempt to answer the question of "who" created the universe.

You need another subset of arguments to take you to that point, but acknowledging the fact that the universe had a beginning is the first step.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't see what the point is of putting this emphasis on "SUPER REASON", or what the "super" even stands for. What are you trying to convey?
.

Yeah, I invented the term
Q - why did the rock fall?
A - 'cos of gravity. You can see gravity all around you.

Q - ok, why is there gravity?
A - you are now on a different level altogether.

I call this a 'super reason', occupying another level altogether because it's not about rocks and everyday items, but rather resides in the realm of maths and physics.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

No, it does not. For those models it applies to, it prevents geodesics from being infinite into the past.

Yeah, like the geodesics that we find ourselves living within, which is why the theorem applies to this universe and any universe like it.

it is still possible to have a spatially infinite universe.

Like what? These are hocus pocus scenarios that have no scientific backing whatsoever.

SLOT is a statistical law not a fundamental one. It is like saying that if you flip a coin 2 trillion times, you are likely to get about 1 trillion heads. And, more so, your percentage of heads will be close to 50%.

But, given enough repeats, you will eventually flip all heads in 2 trillion flips.

Even though I give you props for the acronym, you are WRONG in stating that SLOT is not a fundamental law.

Again, when you see any organism decay, you are observing the SLOT in action. It never fails.

The universe is a closed system, and is slowly decaying and will eventually find itself in a "heat death". The energy to do work is winding down, and if it is winding down, it must have been wound up.

And the chance of it being wound up (find tuned) by random chance is a 1 chance in 10^10^123...which is ugly...for your side of things.

I have yet to see a coherent philosophical argument against infinite regress. All I have seen have been based on some poorly defined notion of 'transversing' an infinite sequence.

It is simple. You cannot traverse an infinite amount of points in order to arrive at a single point.

If time is infinite, then that would mean that in order to arrive at today, an infinite amount of preceding days were traversed to get here.

So, if each day that preceded today had a natural number attached, what would be the highest number in the bunch?

There can be no answer to this, because there is no such thing as the "highest" number in an infinite set.

So there you have it.

And there is really no way out of it, so you can save yourself the time in trying to come up with some miraculous way to escape the inescapable.

No, if you read what he said, he made a correct statement. There is nothing that prevents a spatially infinite universe. There are arguments founded on classical (non-quantum) physics for there being a singularity in the past by necessity.

Again, Vilenkin said that the theorem is independent of there even being a singularity.

And the Standard Model of the big bang has a singularity, and in that model, the universe certainly began to exist.

None of the ones you have given hold much water. I have pointed out the mistakes. You have ignored them or misunderstood them.

Did I? What have I ignored or misunderstood?

Not at all. We *know* quantum physics is part of how our universe works. And we *know* that it will be relevant for gravity at some energy. We *know* it often gives very counter-intuitive facts about the universe. And we *know* that it is an acausal description of the universe.

And we "know" that philosophical arguments, such as that of infinite regression, is independent of physics.

We "know" that quantum physics can't get you things like married bachelors, or squared circles, or two-sided sticks.

We "know" those things, too.

Which models of quantum gravity have been tested? None. But we know some sort of quantum gravity will be required for a full theory.

Well, when you get that full theory, let me know.

That is a HUGE leap of logic. yes, human engineers design things. But being fine tuned does NOT mean that the universe is designed.

A single cell is more complex than a space shuttle. Yet, the space shuttle was designed, but the cell wasn't?

This is the taxi cab fallacy.

10^10^123 <---the initial fine-tuned parameters which needed to be set from very beginning of the universe beginning.

How do you begin with such precision? Those low entropy conditions were placed there by an intelligent mind.

I understand that is hard for you to deal with, but hey...you will be aight.

False analogy. Since *all* causality (and hence all explanation) has to do with things *within* the universe, there *can be no* explanation (cause) of the universe as a whole.

This is false. The universe (or nature) cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain...and when you attempt to do so, you are arguing in a circle and thus using fallacious reasoning.

The internet device is within the universe and is not causally closed.

Nothing within the device can be used to explain the origins of the device as a whole.

That is the point that you missed/ignored...and it isn't going away.

External causes are needed for anything which begins to exist...and if you think otherwise, I will leave you to your absurdities (no offense).

False. BGV only applies to semi-classical models. It does not apply to situations involving quantum gravity.

When you can provide a quantum gravity model which does not feature linear temporal ordering (expansion in the "later than" direction), then we will consider the model.

Any model that has been expanding in its history must have had a beginning, and your appeal to quantum gravity is nothing more than atheistic "Quantum Physics" of the gaps.

So please provide actual evidence for a designer, not simply mere possibilities. Claims of fine tuning without addressing the theory dependence of that concept won't be enough.

You have..

1. A universe that began to exist from nothing.

2. A universe that was fine-tuned for life with mathematical/engineering precision.

3. A reason to believe that a First Cause is absolutely, positively necessary.

Between science and philosophy, you have yourself an intelligent designer.

Now of course, none of this will ever be accepted by people who are simply hell-bent on the belief that God does not exist.

I understand this, so I am not at all shocked that even if the Holy Spirit was to slap you guys on the behind, you still wouldn't believe.

You may even blame the slap on quantum physics, though.

Funny that cosmologists don't agree with you.

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin does.

It is pure speculation on your part that a designer is required. To justify that there was/is a designer, you have to be very clear about how things would look *without* a designer: in other words, how they would look if only natural laws applied. That has not been done, so ALL you have is speculation. Even the BGV theorem, which theists love to exclaim, has very little support within cosmology. It is one argument that may or may not be relevant.

Nonsense. Since 2003 (when the theorem was published), cosmologists have proposed a few models to negate the theorem, and all have failed.

If the theorem has little support from cosmology, then cosmologists wouldn't have been on the record for proposing models to debunk the theorem.

They know/knew whats up.

Hahaha.

Which is a very good reason to be skeptical of their existence.

Syllogism test..

1. If it can't be put into a test tube (verified by science)...

2. Therefore, we should be skeptical of its truth value.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

 

[ppp]

Again, when you see any organism decay, you are observing the SLOT in action. It never fails.

How is that not statistical?

 

[rational experiences]

Infinity by 1.
100000000000000000000000000000.

On earth position one is not burning.

So it owns it's infinite God body. O planet earth exact by space law. Not any man's thesis. It's only about cosmic law first. Origin.

Which he is ignorantly is using against us. Earths mass power plant ground changes. Not any earth historic law. Is his new theories position yet still inferes to cosmic law.

Is how dangerous Theists are.

Heavens are now burning also not earths law origin immaculate. So the immaculate history law eradicated as just one whole body mass heavens first. Law no longer exists as first just immaculate. Speaking about origin position only. Cosmic truth.

So 00000000000000000000000 infinity is only the future position where burning did stop in vacuum void that falls into A complete nothing as no light. Where light ends in mass. Where only space exists coldest place.

Stretched far far away.

No light can only be the future. As we live where light exists.

Was the origin human theist scientific awareness. Father's.

As baby man innocent. Grew into inheriting his father. Became the father of science and creation.

Yet father and baby lived first in memory on one earth as bio organic human life. Our origin human memory non scientific.

Anything you believe in as human is always affected by first natural human father's memory.

As we only began ourselves as small microbial bodies of two.... sperm ovary.

Says humans consciousness.

Men think thesis and reactions for machines laws only. It doesn't matter what cosmic theme is used it's just about humans machine control.

Use the inferences stories via brother to brother who then gains ideas. Most fake. As every mi d is AI affected differently.

Why science isn't just one man's minds. It's Multi possession of incorrect awareness.

Bible said your brothers agreed upon evil. Taught as a known fact.

So next conscious advice says if I do a reaction I compare the reaction to my own human biology.....

Will I die is the question. If I apply a known evil reaction.

Is the place of your humans mind possession how you understood the mechanics of machine plus resource could be used as a weapon against your own biology. Advised. By your own man self.

Hence I heard your man AI new atmosphere experiments state....why I got attacked.... asking can I use this advice as a new weapon against family biology. In heavens position.

Seeing you compare your machines gain electricity as a theoried status given to machine ....machine circuit. Taken only out of grounds mass. All status.

Wait a minute lying mind says dusts like humans are on Top of ground. How a theist cons coerces. It's human behaviour involved in science and it's dangerous. Themes beliefs and also innate nasty snideness. What Theists do... deride each other's thoughts.

Not being innate spiritual psychic aware. Being self survival awareness. Exact reasons why spiritual psychics fought for human rights. Visionary. Heard voice advice. Secrets of nasty minds.

Already expressing in Theists minds. I heard it.

The heavens doesn't own ground mass.

So you compared life to being superfried if you can learn about it above. As AI says if you don't get a resource it promises you might get a new weapon.

As biology isn't electricity as your greatest lie. Words coerce. Theist impose the use of the word. The word electricity exact fries burns biology.

Bio chemistry is chemical pulsing only.

Therefore he says ground chemistry maybe I can learn how biology gained it's bio electricity.

When we don't.

Instead he should be AI saying it's how I invented electricity myself the second first time. Ground dust.

Knowing humans own mineral dust not nuclear dust. In a near water life biology only.

So then he warns himself. Each new invention changed my memory.

I'm up to number 3 about thesis is about electricity. Third time.

3rd warning says life's not listening to warnings of bio destruction activation.

As it's man's own aware cause effect learnt scientific teaching. Laws warning evil minds.

His owned warnings to his own man self.

You think about sun mass above reacting. In its exact position you want that mass now to come to the ground as supply. Claiming it universal resourcing.

 

[joelr]

And as you know, there's tons of videos interpreting Daniel in the opposite direction.
One reason Maccabees is not included in the Jewish Tanakh - the holy text was closed after Babylon. Thinking of it as a fluid text till Jesus time is not correct.

Of interest to me was Daniel speaking of what became the Roman empire - this empire would destroy the temple, Jerusalem and Isael, and even kill the Messiah. This was puzzling to Jews who wanted a Messianic King who would rule the nations. Yet this is exactly what happened - Rome killed Jesus and destroyed Israel.
The dating of the Coming Messiah is also interesting but I am not qualified to address that. This book might be the book that speaks of Rome as one day falling yet would never fall (ie it became Roman Catholicism, the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman empire, even today where America, Russia, Italy and Germany all see themselves as the New Rome) But Babylon, during Babylonian times, would never be inhabited again - and it became a field of mud. Prophecy is another fascinating aspect of the bible.

No the evidence on Daniel is very decisive.

43:53 Daniel actually written between 167 and 164 BC. Daniels visions from Gabriel are very specific and accurate up through the year 167 BC and then fail dramatically after 164 BC. Which illustrates the date. So yes the prophecy looks correct up until 167 because that is when it was being written. The magic power suddenly fails after 164 BC? Or is it that it was simply written then. To invoke the supernatural you need good evidence.

Daniel believes they are at the end times and are totally wrong.

Ezekiel’s prediction of the worlds end failed so the author of Daniel reinterpreted the timeframe so the end would occur in his day.

Danilel’s prediction failed so John the Revelator reinterpreted the timeframe so the world would end in his day. His failure resulted in ongoing recalculations.


John Hamer is a Pastor with a MA in history and theology so not part of the historicity field but he has put together many good lectures. He covers all of the history and facts about Daniel. There is enough evidence to demonstrate it's written far after the events it writes about.
The Book of Daniel as a Pious Fraud

 

[PruePhillip]

No the evidence on Daniel is very decisive.

43:53 Daniel actually written between 167 and 164 BC. Daniels visions from Gabriel are very specific and accurate up through the year 167 BC and then fail dramatically after 164 BC.

It's interesting that TWO PRINCES ARE MENTIONED. These turned out to be Jesus and Titus.
Jesus is the Messianic prince, the Son of God. Titus is the prince of the Roman emperor Vespasion.

The destruction of the temple
The destruction of Jerusalem
The cutting off of the Messiah - holy one, prince
Desolations are determined - exile and suffering of the Jewish people

Jesus said the city of Jerusalem will be trampled under the feet of the Gentiles until the Gentiles time is fulfilled. The time of the recapture of Jerusalem was 1967 AD.

There was this guy who made a TV prediction a year before the twin towers came down in NY. He 'saw something' about planes, sky scrapers and a calamity happening the following year. Coincidence? It could be easy to say 'Well no, it's no coincidence, he made the prediction the year AFTER the 911 attacks.' You won't get away with that today, and the guy's prediction is utterly forgotten (I can't even find it on the Internet, if you can, let me know)
So this is how some 'date' Daniel. He wrote of the Greeks so his story must have been during or after the Greeks.
But what if you can't get away with that? Say with Jacob in Egypt ca 1500 BC. He said there would be a Hebrew nation but it would end with the Messiah, and the Gentiles would believe in him. So was Genesis written second century AD? No. So how to explain it? You don't, you just ignore it. Same with Daniel.

 

[joelr]

It's interesting that TWO PRINCES ARE MENTIONED. These turned out to be Jesus and Titus.
Jesus is the Messianic prince, the Son of God. Titus is the prince of the Roman emperor Vespasion.

The destruction of the temple
The destruction of Jerusalem
The cutting off of the Messiah - holy one, prince
Desolations are determined - exile and suffering of the Jewish people

Jesus said the city of Jerusalem will be trampled under the feet of the Gentiles until the Gentiles time is fulfilled. The time of the recapture of Jerusalem was 1967 AD.

A redactor added text around 167 BC in Aramiac and left the old text in Hebrew. The destruction of the temple in 167 is the immediate context of the additions. It accurately predicts events up until 167 then everything is wrong after that.
Then Greek additions were added from the Septuagint.
The Aramaic Daniel gets past Kings dates and history completely wrong.
The Hebrew redactor has Gabrielle give dates for the end of time. Completely all wrong. Didn't happen. Dan 9:24 World would end in 164 BCE.
The temple was restored but without all the resurrections.
Instead of the apocalypse the temple was rededicated to Jerusalem
The original calculations of Daniel failed so Mark recalculated and John the Revelator updated Daniel's visions and beasts.
These continue to be recalculated today.

There is also a lecture on apocalyptism and how it entered scripture (Persia)

I
There was this guy who made a TV prediction a year before the twin towers came down in NY. He 'saw something' about planes, sky scrapers and a calamity happening the following year. Coincidence? It could be easy to say 'Well no, it's no coincidence, he made the prediction the year AFTER the 911 attacks.' You won't get away with that today, and the guy's prediction is utterly forgotten (I can't even find it on the Internet, if you can, let me know)

First link to a recording or writing that can be verified to be before 9/11.
Then find out how many predictions he made each year. Did he make 15,000 predictions in a large book at the beginning of each year?
Also...."a guy"........?

Daniel is one big fail and now some guy?

So this is how some 'date' Daniel. He wrote of the Greeks so his story must have been during or after the Greeks.
But what if you can't get away with that? Say with Jacob in Egypt ca 1500 BC. He said there would be a Hebrew nation but it would end with the Messiah, and the Gentiles would believe in him. So was Genesis written second century AD? No. So how to explain it? You don't, you just ignore it. Same with Daniel.

Jacob says no such thing. You are literally putting words in his mouth. The dating is explained in the lecture which you probably won't watch.



There is no evidence for Jacob and Genesis is known to be a complete myth. Jacob wrestled with God. A wrestling match. Genesis is known in scholarship to be nothing but a myth.
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.



Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.


Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

Genesis/Enuma Elish

 

[gnostic]

Like what? These are hocus pocus scenarios that have no scientific backing whatsoever.

The “hocus locus” is those like creating daylight with magic words “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3-5) or creating fully grown human from dust and bringing it to life just by blowing air into the dust-made nostrils (2:7).

Those are hocus pocus. You might as well as believe in fairytales, with winged fairies, pixies, ghouls, goblins, etc.

In fact, the Christian teachings do believe in fairies...they are called angels (eg Ezekiel 1:5-14; Revelation 4:8), and demons with many heads (Revelation, eg the Two Beasts, the Dragon, the Whore of Babylon, etc).

 

[joelr]

Same with Daniel.

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery
BY RICHARD CARRIER
How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery • Richard Carrier

Conclusion

......
For the book of Daniel, the actual evidence points in only one direction: Daniel is a forgery, a treatise of cultural and war propaganda created and popularized by the Maccabees, which became so moving and influential, such an emotional touchstone in how it galvanized the Jews and contributed to their rare victory against an oppressor, and such a politically essential text for the Hasmonean regime to subsequently venerate, that it became enshrined as trusted scripture and, like Jeremiah before, reinterpreted as still yet foretelling the final victory of the Jews against all future oppressors. All evidence points to there never even having been such a Jewish prophet before the book of Daniel was fabricated in the 160s B.C. (or, for maybe some of its earlier chapters, in the 4th century B.C., although that remains less certain). Legends of such a prophet may have circulated in previous centuries, evolving from the legendary Ugaritic Danel, just as Noah and Job are myths evolving from the likes of Jobab and Utnapishtim. Many of the tales in Daniel may derive from such oral myths, setting them now in a specific historical era that its authors did not actually know all that well but wanted readers to believe was historically legitimate, resulting in embarrassing and otherwise-inexplicable errors by which we are able now to detect the con. Just think how many forgeries didn’t make this mistake and thus have successfully tricked us into believing them authentic—maybe not many, but that this is an ever-present danger is why we need reasons to trust any text; gullibility is no virtue. And there just are no reasons to trust Daniel, and ample reasons to distrust it. All apologists have are convenient assertions and speculations, declarations without any evidence; which are mere baseless rationalizations of their desperately-needed selective gullibility.

That’s not doing history. It’s pseudohistory. If you want to know what is history, then Daniel is a forgery. No valid method leads to any other conclusion.

 

[rational experiences]

A basic human man natural presence.

First you are and have to be present.

A human.

Before you can discuss themes science.

Only about presence created creation.

Man says man is a fraud as you were and are.