Turning Jesus into God

Yes...I read it. But what stood out most for me
was that there is too much they don't know to draw conclusions....

It's wonderful that you "don't care what I think" ,
but then why do you keep replying to my post?

 

Don't build strawmen now .. I did not say "I don't care what you think" ... sans Koko

What stands out for me is this

1) Einstein - and Entire scientific community has been pondering this question for a long time - and they have come to a few conclusions

First is that "empty space" is not empty - second is that it has properties. - Put a thermometer outside the International space station and tell me what it reads.

Take any cubic meter of "Empty Space" in our Galaxy - and I tell you it is not empty .. and therefore not at "Absolute Zero" .. and we can probably do a good idea of guestimating how close to Zero we are ..

So this space has some energy - photon's passing through at regular intervals - - such that at any point in time there are going to be many many photon's passing through this space ... or do you wish to claim that if you stuck your head into this box somewhere in our galaxy - that you would look out and see nothing ?

2) but no .. of course we do not have it all figured out .. and simply on this basis .. Koko's "Defacto" claim is false.. as he is claiming he knows his position for certain .. my position is that he does not ..

And now you my friend are in contradiction .. .. claiming that you agree with Koko's position .. yet claim we do not have it all figured out.

3) but - let us defend the other side - we just figured out a few weeks ago - Scientifically speaking - that there is this stuff called Dark Energy and Dark Matter .. Dark Energy making up 67% of all the stuff in the universe .. Dark Matter making up 27%

Which means the Earth .. and all matter we see makes up around 5 %

Well .. OK - just trying to stretch my mind around curved space - gravity - gravity waves and so on .. and now we find this out.

Problem with our "empty space" theory .. is that our little cubic meter just got a whole lot more crowded.

but - if you do want to defend the other position - Fine - then do so coherently .. make a defense .. something more than - "I know what I am talking about and you don't" .. followed up with links that contradict your claim... with no ability to address information to the contrary with anything other than .. putting hands over ears crying no no no.

Do you not agree ?

 

Lol....correct me if I'm wrong, but your comments above about myself
are the very same strawmen you are accusing me of.

I never once said "I know what I'm talking about"
I even suggested to pitbull that he ask you what space is...
because you have all the answers. Nor have I said
that you "don't know what you're talking about".
(Do you really think lying will support your argument?)

Just because someone or yourself
says that empty space has properties....
that in itself does not preclude space from being empty.
I simply don't agree with you...
I think Koko's ideas are every bit as valid as yours...
maybe even more so. That is my opinion

 

Gab .. those comments are not about you .. was talking about someone else .. my bad if that was not made clear .

Disagree all you like My issue is that I am sure what it is that you don't agree with .. so your bad for not making that clear.

 

Thanks much for explanation.
I find it easy to get lost in these long threads.
My own "preferred" opinion is that time and space are more of an hallucination than reality.
We can change our math around all we want to support our own "preferred" opinion....
about an illusion...but that does not make it any more real....at least not in the "real" as we understand it.
I...myself...do not "know" anything for certain...and that's okay....
are you quite sure that you really "know" anything?

 

Your reading comprehension lacks greatly. Are you the Son of God who would atone for other's sins?

 

Row Row Row your boat - gently down the steam - merrily merrily merrily merrily - Life is but a dream.

I am certain of one thing - that at some point - some configure of "matter - energy - dark and light - and empty space - the canvas" arranged itself in such a way - that it gained knowledge of its own existence. I think therefor I am .. or "I Drink Therefor I am" if you prefer the Monty Python Version.

 

A statement by the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is “Cogito, ergo sum.”


Actually...thinking is the problem....creativity does not arise from thinking.
But have you ever noticed that everything you use to support your arguments...
is someone else's idea.....
Why do you believe them?

 

Oh yes I have many lacks....
but you haven't yet provided any bible reference to your claim....

can you point out the place(s) in the Bible
where Jesus claims he is different than the rest of us?

Because if he did not say that....then it's probably not true.

 

Sounds like you have gone a step too far down the path of existentialism. While it is true that life may be just a dream .. and that concrete wall might be a figment of your imagination .. but this is the dream you are having .. and in this dream .. when you bang head into concrete - it hurts.

 

Perhaps you know that because you have actually experienced "banging your head" on something....
so you assume concrete would do the same.
But most of your arguments are based on someone else's theories or conclusions...
why do you believe them.....

"Humans are the only animals who can simply make things up, agree on them as a group, and they become real."
"All animals pay attention to physical things that allow them to survive and thrive. We humans add to the world by collectively imposing new functions on physical things, and we live by them."

 

Why do I believe who - who is "Them" - and who said I believed these people and don't actually "Know" through experience.

and I am well aware of the filter through which perception is arrived at

What I don't understand is what you are trying to get at.

 

The word "them" in this case simply refers to the ideas or theories
or formulas etc......that you have been using throughout this thread.
They have all originated from someone else....why do you believe them?
(Them...meaning the ideas). Why are you so sure of "them", that you are willing to use
such information to support your arguments?
For instance...you quote...E=mc2
do you think just because man has discovered a way to blow up himself
and everyone else at the same time...that he actually knows what energy is?
Man knows just enough to be dangerous and pollute
the earth with radioactive waste...that's about it.

What I'm getting at is the idea you have that you actually "know" anything
if all you are doing is repeating someone else's ideas.

 

You start out with "We know from experience" banging head in to concrete wall.

Well sorry Gab .. but we know from experience that E=MC2 is true .. in the same way as banging head into concrete wall.

That said .. I was not relying on these things .. and this is what you continue to fail to understand. You can call Einstein a wiener if you wish .. Koko's term - not mine.

But if you wish to claim that I am wrong for pointing out that name calling does not constitute a valid argument - against Einstein's - and mainstream theory's suppositions w/r to the curvature of space - you are the one who is wrong. and these guys don't claim to know everything either ..

You say - We don't know all there is to know about Energy. True - but why are you repeating what I have stated in previous posts - .. as if this is something I was arguing against ?

Why are you repeating my position back to me - as if it was not my position ?

 

speaking of straw men that's called an ad populum fallacy just because hundred people say dog turds are delicacy best eaten on Saturday doesn't mean they are anything more than

and I suppose something that is full is not full?

I'd estimate about 46 degrees, why what do you think it is?

so you've explored every inch I've our galaxy and can tell us definitively that there's no spot in the galaxy where condition exists that there's nothing in it, seriously

you sure seem to think you do

Dream on dark matter theory has been around for a long time they don't have the answers so they made that **** up, it's all made up and you come out here pretending its all fact.

Space is defined as an area. That's all space defines. Problem is you dont know the difference between the bucket and water thats in it.

So if 'space' defines whats in it and we have 3 buckets, one filled with sand, one with water, and one with beer.

What you are claiming is all I need do is ask for a bucket of space since you seem to think space is the definition of whats in it LMAO

So the space is warped around the beer therefore holds the beer! Brilliant!

 

I can't make much sense of this post - especially not the false claims attributed to me. .. think we are beyond the point of rational thought here .. so .. not much point in robbery .. when nothing is worth taking - throw your safety overboard . .and join our insect nation !

 

No....you're lying again...YOU brought that idea into the conversation
which proves....in totality....how much you actually know for certain.

 

I didn't lie the first time .. never said you brought concrete in to the conversation .. you did however claim that we know from experience what happens when head meets concrete .. claiming further that we did not have the same certainty with E=MC2.

Your claim was proven false .. now deal with it in some way other than spewing falsehoods ... por favor.

 

Look at post #265.....
Koko has outlined your argument for you.

 

Yet again you are lying...
This is what I said below...

I did not claim that "we" know anything...
I said perhaps "you" know...
with the emphasis on perhaps

 

If this is where you're getting your information....
it's no wonder you think you know so much.

 

What a joke .. it makes no difference whether it is You or We in the context .. We obviously not including you. While you may not know .. the rest of the scientific community knows that E= MC2 is just as valid as the concrete example.


Your claim is false either way .. get over it.

 

Which of my claims are you referring to....
is it the one that says..."I don't know anything"...
or the ones that claim you are lying about what I said?

What exactly is it that you are telling me to get over....
maybe the idea that you don't actually know anything?

 

I laid it out fairly clearly - yet you continue to try to make this about me .. but it is not. What I believe is irrelevant - to my argument.

hence the term "We" - referring to the overwhelming consensus of the subject matter expert collective.

Do you now understand this distinction ? cause you keep proving otherwise in your posts.

Claim - "the collective thinks this"

Koto - Screw the collective - Einstein is a Weiner

To which my comment was "Well thats nice" but name calling is not much of an argument for your position.

and you jumped in to the convo somewhere in the middle and went down a rabbit hole.. from which you have yet to escape.

 

As someone who has valued Jesus' message and teachings more than the questions surrounding his miracles and divinity I can somewhat sympathize with where you're coming from but on the other hand I must concede that it does matter who and what Jesus was.

Surely you can see that.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if Jesus is God, the son of God or an ordinary man who has been turned into God. In fact, stripping all the mysticism and miracles away from Jesus has enabled me to develop a greater appreciation for him, his teachings and his travails, as well as the enormous influence he has had on Western Civilization.