Did Nothing Create Everything?

SetiAlpha6 said:
I provided two sources that are VERY opposed to the Hypothesis
Click to expand...

That is not true, they are not opposed to it at all, they are doing what has not been done; the science.

I have reviewed them both myself and personally find them to be unpersuasive.
Click to expand...

So, the science is unpersuasive yet the none science is persuasive?

I have a Christian bias
Click to expand...

As do the folks you support, that's the problem.

Both of the "Against" authors also seem to have their own biases.
Click to expand...

What bias, exactly? To science?

I am not a scientist or an expert in any of the necessary fields of study.
So I am limited, and I have to rely on the expertise of others.
Click to expand...

Except you're not relying on those who are actually conducting the science, you're relying on biased Christians.
 
(Q) said:
That is not true, they are not opposed to it at all, they are doing what has not been done; the science.



So, the science is unpersuasive yet the none science is persuasive?



As do the folks you support, that's the problem.



What bias, exactly? To science?



Except you're not relying on those who are actually conducting the science, you're relying on biased Christians.
Click to expand...

What am I supposed to do when scientists disagree with scientists and scholars disagree with scholars?
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
What am I supposed to do when scientists disagree with scientists and scholars disagree with scholars?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're asking who should you trust, the folks who are trying to do the science or the biased religious folks trying to validate their ancient beliefs? Scientists disagreeing with other scientists would imply science is being conducted on both sides.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
What am I supposed to do when scientists disagree with scientists and scholars disagree with scholars?
Click to expand...
The greater majority of scientists while maybe disagreeing on some issues, are generally agreed that the universe/spacetime evolved from an event we call the BB, and that life evolved and continues to evolve. Some theories like the two mentioned, along with SR and GR are well supported by evidence with little or no disgreement, other less evidenced based theories may have some disagreement.
 
(Q) said:
It sounds like you're asking who should you trust, the folks who are trying to do the science or the biased religious folks trying to validate their ancient beliefs? Scientists disagreeing with other scientists would imply science is being conducted on both sides.
Click to expand...

I already provided a list of PHD level Scientists who agree with the Hypothesis.

An exception to note is that Dr. Sung Hak Kim is a medical physician not a PHD level Scientist, just to clarify.
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
I already provided a list of PHD level Scientists who agree with the Hypothesis.

An exception to note is that Dr. Sung Hak Kim is a medical physician not a PHD level Scientist, just to clarify.
Click to expand...
There are Mavericks in all walks of life. They are wrong as has been shown.
 
paddoboy said:
There are Mavericks in all walks of life. They are wrong as has been shown.
Click to expand...

Ok, you are free to go with that.

Are you sure you want to align yourself with Mr. Gordon Franz?

And what do you know about the scientific background of Mr. E. Harding?
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
I already provided a list of PHD level Scientists who agree with the Hypothesis.
Click to expand...

There are lots of folks with credentials who don't conduct science. Credentials don't mean anything unless the person is actually carrying out their jobs in earnest. That's a fallacy; Appeal to Authority.

It's the work being done that is tantamount.

For example, we have here a video of Bob Cornuke claiming the found the "Yahweh Inscription" from Jebel al-Lawz, yet it was found to be not only be forged, but they also mistranslated the inscription, which was instead a prayer for the pagan god, Lat. Unfortunately, the so-called science being conducted by these guys is corrupt, at best.


https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/10/yahweh-inscription-discovered-at-mount-sinai/

https://www.lifeandland.org/2012/09/was-an-archaeological-forgery-mistakenly-portrayed-as-authentic/
 
(Q) said:
There are lots of folks with credentials who don't conduct science. Credentials don't mean anything unless the person is actually carrying out their jobs in earnest. That's a fallacy; Appeal to Authority.

It's the work being done that is tantamount.

For example, we have here a video of Bob Cornuke claiming the found the "Yahweh Inscription" from Jebel al-Lawz, yet it was found to be not only be forged, but they also mistranslated the inscription, which was instead a prayer for the pagan god, Lat. Unfortunately, the so-called science being conducted by these guys is corrupt, at best.


https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/10/yahweh-inscription-discovered-at-mount-sinai/

https://www.lifeandland.org/2012/09/was-an-archaeological-forgery-mistakenly-portrayed-as-authentic/
Click to expand...

So you are choosing Mr. Gordon Franz and Mr. E. Harding as your “scientific” experts?

What work have they done on the Site?

I don’t think you should really do that, but you can if you wish.

And Mr. Bob Cornuke was not on my list.
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
Ok, you are free to go with that.

Are you sure you want to align yourself with Mr. Gordon Franz?

And what do you know about the scientific background of Mr. E. Harding?
Click to expand...
Don't know much about either actually. But I do know plenty more scientifically reputable professional scientists, and their theories and evidences. Like I said earlier....any deity or magical spaghetti monster is superfluous at least back to t=10-43 seconds.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
So you are choosing Mr. Gordon Franz and Mr. E. Harding as your “scientific” experts?
Click to expand...

No, I am not making the same mistake you made, where you appealed to the authority of ones credentials.

]What work have they done on the Site?
Click to expand...

It was in the papers I linked, which means you didn't bother to read them to find out.

I don’t think you should really do that, but you can if you wish.
Click to expand...

Ah, so want to me join you in not following the science? Thanks but no thanks.

And Mr. Bob Cornuke was not on my list.
Click to expand...

But, he was involved with Dr. Sung Hak Kim, who was on your list.
 
(Q) said:
No, I am not making the same mistake you made, where you appealed to the authority of ones credentials.



It was in the papers I linked, which means you didn't bother to read them to find out.



Ah, so want to me join you in not following the science? Thanks but no thanks.



But, he was involved with Dr. Sung Hak Kim, who was on your list.
Click to expand...

Thank you again for showing me the error of my ways (Q)! I was wrong!!!

You are a great blessing to me!!!

Mr. Gordon Franz is of course a Bible believing, Exodus believing, Christian and archeologist, who merely fancies his own personal favorite Mountain as the candidate for Mt. Sinai.

Not the kind of person I would expect you to align yourself with. But you apparently seem to agree with him. Hopefully I am wrong on this.

I personally found every last argument of his to be unfounded.

And Mr. E Harding is certainly no scientist.

His arguments are often presented with exaggeration, character assassination, unwarranted arrogance, and inaccuracy. He does mix in some truth which should be considered.

That is my personal opinion.

If you like them both, you are welcome to do so.
You are free to choose.

I am not really a fan of Mr. Bob Cornuke myself.
Perhaps we can agree on that one. Hope so!
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
No, I am not making the same mistake you made, where you appealed to the authority of ones credentials.



It was in the papers I linked, which means you didn't bother to read them to find out.



Ah, so want to me join you in not following the science? Thanks but no thanks.



But, he was involved with Dr. Sung Hak Kim, who was on your list.
Click to expand...

Thank You, I watched the video, but did not read the links. I will do that next.
 
I actually like your link to the Gordon Franz perspective and material better than my own and will likely use it in the future.

Thank You for providing it (Q)!

I am sure you noticed his belief in the Exodus Miracles. Do you agree with him on that?

I just think he has too much to lose with the discovery of any other Site than his own personal professional favorite.

I believe he is suppressing the New Site because it would destroy his own reputation, and force him to throw out many of his very public prior assumptions, and claims.

I think I might go with these links in the future thanks to you...

https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia/

https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia-part-2/

https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia-part-3/

I wish him well, but disagree with him.
 
Last edited:
Bowser said:
Well, what is a thought? Is it actually something or is it nothing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what thoughts are, functional states in a nervous system I'd guess. So yes, I think that they are something. One would assume that creator deities of the highly personalized sort possess thoughts and intentions. That's how they are usually portrayed in the ancient religious literature.

Appealing to the supposed reality of a deity to explain the the reality of everything looks circular to my eye.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top