That's from classical physics. You must account today for general relativity and quantum physics, resulting a the e=mc^2 equation and hold that the sum of mass and energy are thus related and bound in a closed system.

I mean what I said, no big deal. It's not really the thing you came to discuss, although it's not exactly a detour.

For example, the Big Bang was not a gigantic version of a black hole, rather all space simultaneously shrinking to a singularity. Whether that was infinite space or finite, but that's a side issue. The reason is that at the moment the universe shrunk to a singularity, measurements could not exist. Terms like length and width did not exist and could not. Therefore, I summarized in the prior post "pretty much nothing." There's also an issue of time.

So you see? It was "pretty much nothing."



Certainly a religious person could attribute that to the creation of everything from nothing. Science does not ATTRIBUTE causation, it's unnecessary. Also there is zero ability to prove such causation, if you think about it.

But as I previously noted, religion is about belief/faith, not facts and evidence. This is laid out explicitly in your bible. That is why I criticized the searching and posting of miracles and made note of how many times they are simply scams.

Well, what does it matter to you what the facts are? We're not debating whether the Earth is six thousand years old, or other crackpot stuff. You simply didn't know the subject when I commented on things reducing to "pretty much nothing," and sought to change the subject and so forth.

There's no need to bring thermo in, or mass conservation, they have little relation to this subject. It would take some study to get it. It's easier just to toss out a few quotes from the Tower of Biblical, right?

...the US is like a never-ending reality TV show for the rest of the world...

We used to have a moat, so to speak. The Rio Grande was an actual pretty good river. Then against some of our agreements with them, the Mexicans damned it up and downstream, it became just a trickle or in many places, a dry stream bed.

Hence, illegal Mexicans crossing over are no longer called "wetbacks."

Well, that argument has been around a long time. I don't think it's been proven or disproven. I listened to a really good audio book some time ago, where the prof did a historical analysis.

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Historical-Jesus-Audiobook/B00DC8EQOI

I guess I would comment I liked the prof's method of analysis, but of course he could not prove or disprove this question, only cite the evidence and use analytic methods and such.

Abbreviated to actual content.

You've so far, said four or five things that were untrue, dodged real issues a number of times, and topped it off with a bunch of emotional and juvenile attempts at insults.

This is not the behavior of one who should imitate Christ.

How about let's have a real miracle here, and you see the light?

Well, the Big Bang was a singularity of sorts, if not in space then certainly in time.

"Space" had no meaning at that moment. Let's say a way to understand it is that there were no dimensions. Length, width, height had no meaning.

In scientific phrases, that's not INCONSISTANT with your comment, if it is revised to the correct form, including both matter and energy thusly...

E=MC^2

PS: I shouldn't have cut you that much slack, sitting her watching a b grade movie about aliens taking over and humans fighting, and giving you about 1% of my attention. You are just plain wrong.

It's energy that's never created or destroyed. Not matter. The proof is in the equation. But it could run considerably deeper than that, and energy may not be conserved.

But what's all that to a good Christian?

Many so-called "miracles" are a scam. Then there's a push for your donations...

This is pretty simple. I don't know why you would resist it. Wait, it's because you are pushing Real Miracles. Well, keep at it. Just expect others to use scientific methods to debunk them. Wait, you'd have to understand the formulation of a scientific hypothesis to get it.....

Well, that's the fourth false thing you have said so far in this discussion.

There has been no such thing. Perhaps you don't understand or care to, and just wanted me to elaborate on the many scammers, present and past, that pose as preachers?

It's curious you wouldn't appreciate the good work such people do...

Oh, I see. Well, perhaps that is your point now, but it was not with the prior post and quote. However, your prior post along with this belief are consistent. I certainly know scientists who are devout Christian/Muslim/whatever and do not see any conflict between their beliefs and science.

Yes, this world did come from pretty much nothing. It was all compressed into pretty much nothing before the Big Bang.

Either you are ignorantly parroting Alinksyian views directed towards collapsing American society by overloading social services and government functions, or you are actively intent on it.

Which?

That's pretty well articulated, but it is lacking. It shows for example how someone can go into science and keep their religious faith. It is lacking because it focuses on one narrow style of religious faith. May I propose an alternate?

"....It is equally mistaken to suppose that our scientific understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of three thousand gods under the all powerful Zeus who working both alone and in concert designed, made, and upholds it."

Let's not obfuscate fairly simple things with big sentences and long winded arguments. Okay?

(A)  You did not answer my rather simple question. Regarding my question, you must have an understanding of the scientific method before you can understand how a miracle may be falsified. Here is a brief explanation.

Reference https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc.” This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Importantly, falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it. Falsifiability says nothing about an argument's inherent validity or correctness. It is only the minimum trait required of a claim that allows it to be engaged with in a scientific manner – a dividing line between what is considered science and what isn’t. Another important point is that falsifiability is not any claim that has yet to be proven true. After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.

(B) This is something (again) that you impute my having said that I did not say. In the previous case where I questioned whether you were lying, you responded "I'm not lying, this is just an analogy to the explanation you made trying to prove wrong the person doing the miracles." Is that the case here also?

Here is an example of a magician who as part of his act routinely performs "miracle healing."

https://www.secrets-explained.com/derren-brown/miracle

Through the power of God, Derren heals members of his audience from chronic pain, bad eyesight and other health problems.

Explanation:

This is done through a mixture of suggestion, social pressure, placebo effect, cold reading and magic. The most obvious example of using magic is his trickery with improving/impoverishing eyesight. For example, when Derren makes an audience member 'lose' his eyesight, he simply shows him a different page in the booklet than he showed to the camera and the audience. The words on that page are actually just gibberish and the participant reads them correctly, giving an illusion that he cannot read normally. With the lady who 'regains' her eyesight, Derren simply shows her really large letters.

Con artists doing miracle healing use the magician's tricks of "cold reading" and "hot reading" to put their scams over on the naive people in the audience.

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

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

Do you have any questions?

It's not for you to say. It makes no difference to my what you try.

Pretty funny, actually, for you to say it is I that make the serious claim, when in fact it is the one purporting to do miracles that makes the serious claim.

When you assume the posture of the moral high ground, try not to engage in rampant lying. That is what you do when you impute to me, the phrase "every seller is a scammer." That's your words, made up in your fantasies. But then, perhaps you were simply in error.


Start with the basics, then. Are you familiar with the scientific method?

But carefully think this over before continuing, because you have already lost this argument, and I don't care to make you look foolish.

That would be another irrefutable hypothesis...

However it remains that debunking the liars and the cheats who prey on the gullible in the name of religion, is a contribution that all the magical thinking and fantasy world religiosos should appreciate.

And it is as far as I am aware, always the work of athiests.

I know a guy that went right into the heart of darkness (A "miracle maker" well known, on stage) and debunked the scam and con game, in public, as the scam was being performed.

He did that at considerable personal risk.

Not impressed with your blabbing about miracles, dude. The way that progress is made is to look at the alleged "miracle" and ask how it could have been a scam. Then, clue by clue, reconstruct the way it was done. Then reveal it publicly, and call the people out as scammers, as appropriate.

Houdini debunked a lot of this crap, also. Many others have. But then, new suckers are born every minute.

There is no other way to look at it. Note WHO is trying to dictate what you say, then you will know WHY.

No need to feel sorry; you lost that argument fair and square.

Translating to your grammatical constructs:

The atheist saw the tools of logic and reason that God gave him; the theist remained blind.

Lol I am good with that perspective!

But there is this game played with three cups, you know?

Put Satan in one then move them around quickly and see if the guy can guess where he winds up.