Present Evidence Here II

[Newtonian]

The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.

Yes it does - depending on translation.  For example:

John 17:3
This means everlasting life,+ their taking in knowledge+ of you,* the only true God,+ and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.+

NW  ref. footnote"

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060046/141

Or, “their knowing you.” Gr., hiʹna gi·noʹsko·si se.

The word "knowledge" is found 172 times in the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)

Romans 1:20 shows that the study of the "things made" will reveal much about God's qualities.   Note that the study of things made involves all branches of scientific study.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) "Prove all things."

[trdsf]

Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

[aitm]

Yes it does - depending on translation. 

And there you have it. In other words...make up shit instead of what it really says.

[trdsf]

Yes it does - depending on translation.

Well, then, let's have the originals.

Oh, right.  Those don't exist.  Only translations of translations of copies of copies of copies.  There are no complete texts that pre-date ca. 200-300 CE, which means they're at best copies of copies with no way to verify their accuracy -- or that the originals were written two or three centuries after the alleged "events".

[Newtonian]

Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

Agreed.   However, some popular scientific beliefs require blind faith - such as at the Big Bang our universe was created from nothing.   This violates both the law of conservation of matter and energy  as well as the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Yet many scientists believe this - I don't btw. 

The Divine Name Jehovah has the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense - thus a primary definition of this name is "He causes to be"   Clearly this is in harmony with the principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than an infinite number of past causes and effects back for infinite past time, there is a First Cause.

The blind faith of some scientists stops them from researching the cause of the origin of our universe.

Btw - some scientists believe in an infinite number of universes - also on blind faith.

You are touching on another many faceted subject - Intelligent design vs. blind chance.   For example how our universe and planet are fine tuned for the existence of life - notably life on the surface of the earth. This involves precise scientific measurements such as the strength of the 4 primary forces of physics.  I think this subject deserve a separate thread -  but in which forum section of this forum?

On your last point - how did the elements come to exist?   Besides hydrogen and lithium, don't they require supernovas?

But how did stars come to exist?   Didn't they require a fine tuned expansion rate of our universe?   See Isaiah 40:22,26.

And don't the laws governing our universe (Job 38:33) require a lawgiver?

[Baruch]

Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

Not religious faith.  Being convinced of the axioms (which were amazingly good considering ...).  Hence Plato's attempt to extend that to all human knowledge (and failing).  There were small defects in Euclid that weren't corrected until after 1800 CE.

[aitm]

The Divine Name Jehovah has the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense - thus a primary definition of this name is "He causes to be"   

The name Thomas also means twin. But yet...I am not. You must be a complete nut job to think your idiocy has any weight.

[Baruch]

The name Thomas also means twin. But yet...I am not. You must be a complete nut job to think your idiocy has any weight.

Twinning is a divine conception (twins were regarded as prodigies in paganism).  Helen vs Clytemnestra.  Castor vs Pollux.  The idea of being a human-divine pairing was popular religious drama in Harran in pagan and later Christian times.

[aitm]

Then....I am a god. All hail me.

Send me 150.00 bucks and I will put in a good word to me.

[Baruch]

Then....I am a god. All hail me.

Send me 150.00 bucks and I will put in a good word to me.

I do, we are all demi-gods (though not per Harran religious drama).  You owe me 200 tetradrachms of Antioch (you could pawn that Holy Handgrenade of Antioch).  Can't even kill a bunny rabbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9Bynjh2Lk

[aitm]

Monty was the best.

[trdsf]

Agreed.   However, some popular scientific beliefs require blind faith - such as at the Big Bang our universe was created from nothing.   This violates both the law of conservation of matter and energy  as well as the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Yet many scientists believe this - I don't btw.

Then you're wrong.  The Big Bang is an OBSERVATION, not a faith-based position.  And it didn't come from nothing.  Fact is, we don't know what triggered the Big Bang -- science does not have the blind arrogance to assert facts, it states observations.  What triggered the Big Bang is an active area of research.

Also, there's no such thing as the nothing you pretend the Big Bang came out of.  There are always quantum fluctuations, even in a spaceless space.  You can't have nothing -- the Uncertainty Principle is clear on that.

[Hydra009]

Intelligent design

Uggh.  Now there's a blast from the past, a winning idea with a (literally) cult following.  Cdesign proponentsists, I believe was the second draft.  There was a guy here who called it "Intelligent God" which was just a tad too on the nose.

How'd that movement work out?  It's funny how a country smothered in religiosity and frequently controlled by right-wing loons that a "sneaky" (but not so sneaky that its dullard proponents couldn't figure it out) ideology like that failed so badly that the term itself is like a period piece.

[Baruch]

Then you're wrong.  The Big Bang is an OBSERVATION, not a faith-based position.  And it didn't come from nothing.  Fact is, we don't know what triggered the Big Bang -- science does not have the blind arrogance to assert facts, it states observations.  What triggered the Big Bang is an active area of research.

Also, there's no such thing as the nothing you pretend the Big Bang came out of.  There are always quantum fluctuations, even in a spaceless space.  You can't have nothing -- the Uncertainty Principle is clear on that.

Literally ... a geometric point by itself is an exact position, which would contain a totally unknown momentum/mass.  Only an inexact position, however small, can have a inexact momentum/mass.

[trdsf]

You are touching on another many faceted subject - Intelligent design vs. blind chance.   For example how our universe and planet are fine tuned for the existence of life - notably life on the surface of the earth. This involves precise scientific measurements such as the strength of the 4 primary forces of physics.  I think this subject deserve a separate thread -  but in which forum section of this forum?

On your last point - how did the elements come to exist?   Besides hydrogen and lithium, don't they require supernovas?

But how did stars come to exist?   Didn't they require a fine tuned expansion rate of our universe?   See Isaiah 40:22,26.

And don't the laws governing our universe (Job 38:33) require a lawgiver?

The universe is NOT fine-tuned for the existence of life.  Life fits the laws that exist, and if the laws were otherwise, then life would be different.  Or impossible.

We are not *implicit* in the universe.  We are merely *possible* in the universe.  You have the unspeakable arrogance to think that this is all about us.  It's not.  The universe is not here for our benefit.  We're just one possible arrangement of molecules and systems within it, and we *are* an accident of all the events leading up to now.

Hydrogen *and helium* and trace amounts of lithium came from Big Bang nucleogenesis.  Everything else came from supernovae.  They didn't require so-called "fine tuning" either.  They are merely possible under the laws this universe operates on.

Saying laws require a lawgiver is wordplay.  The "laws" are how the universe operates.  They're not like laws on drinking ages or when you can get a driver's license.  They're implicit in existence and require only existence, not a "lawgiver" whose existence is both unprovable and unnecessary.