Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kopfverderber

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 02, 2019, 02:15:21 AM »
@Tom And these are the words used in the OT for rise in the sense of ascending, rising up, lifting... As you can see not the same word as in Isaiah 24:20


63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 02, 2019, 01:23:35 AM »

Your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct,

I can imagine you pounding your tits and screaming about your personal opinion.

Does some god sign your paycheck, or are you just belching shit you have been fed?

You are right, I should have worded it in a different way. My bad.

It's just when I hear, "MY GOD, MY WAY", it makes me think it's all about you
instead of about the shit you profess to believe.

So, go ahead and word it your own way, opposed to what is written.

I'm an atheist. The dispute with Tom is not about what I believe or what he believes. The way I see it it's a technical dispute on what is the literal meaning of those words in Hebrew and in English, it's a question of language, not of theology.

I'm not willing to dispute anyone's faith and right to interpret the scriptures. My wording was bad and this was not clear.

A "literal interpretation" is based on what the words means literally. Of course Tom has every right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit. But when he says his interpretation is a literal interpretation, that can be disputed.

In English "Fall to never rise again" doesn't imply that it was rising before. The dead fall never to rise again. It doesn't imply a natural state of constant rising.

The Hebrew word qum means standing up, arising, getting up. The same word is used 38 times in the bible and the same verb with different form more than 600 times.

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 11:50:48 PM »

Your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct,

I can imagine you pounding your tits and screaming about your personal opinion.

Does some god sign your paycheck, or are you just belching shit you have been fed?

You are right, I should have worded it in a different way. My bad.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 11:01:12 PM »
Looks like the figurative usage of 'fall'. Once again, it appears that this is an appeal to the argument of a figurative interpretation of the Bible -- "The Bible is only figurative, it doesn't really mean rise. Yes, it means that the earth will literally shake, and literally be broken apart during its destruction, but the fall and never rise again part which comes immediately after is purely figurative because we know by intuition that the bible has a stationary earth!"

I find your interpretation of Isaiah 24:20 is not correct very odd, I don't think you will find a biblical scholar who agrees with you. Fall to never rise again doesn't imply that it was rising before. In English there can be some confusion about this, but the bible was written in Hebrew.

As explained earlier Qūm means to stand up, to arise. Could you please show the verses that support your interpretation of the Hebrew word "qūm" as something constantly rising?

The exact same word is employed 38 times in the Bible: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kum_6965.htm
Here are some examples. The meaning in nearly all cases is arising from a lying or sitting position, to get up.
Genesis 19:15
Lot saying Arise take your wife
Genesis 35:1
said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel
Numbers 22:20
have come the men rise up go but
Psalm 36:12
See how the evildoers lie fallen-- thrown down, not able to rise!

This one is the most similar to Isaiah 24:20
Amos 5:2
Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again, deserted in her own land, with no one to lift her up.

So according to Amos 5:2 UA stopped applying to Israel, what is your interpretation?

Here's some verses with "never rise again" or similar:

Jeremiah 8:4
So you are to tell them this is what the LORD says: ‘Do men fall and not get up again? Does one turn away and not return?
What is your interpretaion Tom? Are men constantly rising until they fall?

Amos 8:14
Those who swear by the sin of Samaria-- who say, 'As surely as your god lives, Dan,' or, 'As surely as the god of Beersheba lives'-- they will fall, never to rise again."
What is you interpretation Tom?  Are those who swear in sin constantly accelerating upwards until the fall?

Jeremiah 51:64
hen say, ‘In this same way Babylon and her people will sink, never again to rise, because of the disasters I will bring upon her.’” This is the end of Jeremiah’s messages.
Tom, does it mean UA will stop applying to Babylon but the rest of the earth will continue rising?

Deuteronomy 33:11
Bless the ministry of the Levites, O LORD, and accept all the work of their hands. Hit their enemies where it hurts the most; strike down their foes so they never rise again.”
Tom, are those enemies in a state of constantly rising?

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 06:05:35 AM »
Most uses seem be about arising after lying down or kneeling, rising against something (violently)  and so on. I don't really see much support of UA here.

I think you are just projecting UA on bronze age and iron age texts.

It could be a bronze age text attempting to describe something advanced as UA.

Einstein thought that it was pretty weird that bodies fell without inertial resistance, as if the Earth were accelerating upwards. That's why he came up with the Equivalence Principle. If the Bible has phrases about the earth rising and being lifted, then it seems to be scriptural confirmation of a widely-held principle of physics.

I guess with enough imagination and creative interpretation you can make the bible ascribe to any theory. Muslims are specially good at this, some claim the quran predicts  space travel.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 05:04:45 AM »
Quote
The Hebrew word used for "rise"  qūm literally means to arise, stand up or to stand:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm.

Top NASB definitions seem to be rising-related.



Most uses seem be about arising after lying down or kneeling, rising against something (violently)  and so on. I don't really see much support of UA here.

I think you are just projecting UA on bronze age and iron age texts.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 04:34:28 AM »
" and *said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring [G5342] it here. "

Luk 5:18c NASB

" And some men were carrying [G5342] on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. "

Luk 24:1  NASB

" But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing [G5342] the spices which they had prepared. "

Jhn 21:10 NASB

" Jesus *said to them, “Bring [G5342] some of the fish which you have now caught.” "

It seems that this verse could be interpreted as the earth being taken somewhere.

I don't think the meaning in Heb 1:3 is "bring" or implies movement, it's sounds more like the third option in your link "to bear up i.e. uphold (keep from falling)".

A basic difference with the other verses is that a destination is provided when the meaning is "bring", otherwise it makes no sense. Where is the earth being brought to in Heb 1:3? There is nothing to indicate that the earth is being lifted.

Quote
So in the Earth's destruction the Earth literally shakes, it is literally split asunder, but it figuratively falls, 'never to rise again'?

Seems like you have stopped taking the bible literally at some point to satisfy your own cosmology.
My own cosmology is RE, which is not present in the bible.

The verse can be read literally as the earth falling. As if the earth breaks and the foundations break and stay broken for ever. When you are staying and you fall, then you rise to your staying position. The verse doesn't imply that the earth was rising before falling.

The Hebrew word used for "rise"  qūm literally means to arise, stand up or to stand:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6965.htm.

Quote
I would suggest looking it up in a concordance index to see how the term is used elsewhere in the Bible.

That's more difficult to do for non-canonical books. Enoch is thought to be written originally in Hebrew, but no copy has survived. There are some bits in Aramaic, Greek and Latin and then you have the Ethiopian manuscripts.

In this link I found some discussion of Enoch 18:3
https://archive.org/details/cu31924067146773/page/n155

Quote
Usually the Stationary Earth theorists tell us that the pillars are solid structures that the earth rests upon. If the pillars are winds then it makes less sense that the earth is stationary.
I think those might be  different pillars, here's about pillars sustaining the heavens, not the earth. I think Enoch is just trying to make sense out of Job's verse.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 02:20:01 AM »
@kopfverderber In the

"Going the way of all the earth" is an interesting coin-of-phrase for people who believe that they are going to heaven when they die.

In regards to the Book of Enoch and the winds which "bear up the earth", are you now saying that the Earth is wind-hovering in place, perfectly stationary on winds? Interesting that God would create such complexity to do that, rather than to use the winds to push the Earth for a purpose. We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.

To continue with the other citations. "Going the way of all the earth"  seems  just an expression, meaning he is dying so he going to the same place all people go when they die.
https://biblehub.com/1_kings/2-2.htm
the way
בְּדֶ֖רֶךְ (bə·ḏe·reḵ)
Preposition-b | Noun - common singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1870: A road, a course of life, mode of action

For King David that place would be Sheol (underground), not heaven. We are reading David's words. Why would David  think he's going to heaven? If we are to interpret it in such a way, the obvious answer is David thinks he is going underground to Sheol.

For the book of Enoch I think you are focusing a lot on the use of "bear up" in some English translations. If you read the whole chapter:
- The winds contribute to preserve the foundation of the earth.
- The winds bear up the earth and the firmament
- The winds occupy the sky between heaven and earth.
- The winds turn the sky, cause sun and stars to set, support the clouds.

To me it doesn't look like the wind is a force lifting the earth from underneath, and that's just looking at this section. If we take Enoch as whole would all of it be consistent with UA? Or we need to pick a single sentence and forget all the rest?

Other versions of Enoch 18:3 go like this:
En. 18:3 And I saw how the winds stretch out the height of heaven. They stand between earth and heaven; they are the pillars of heaven.

It looks like Enoch is addressing Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astounded at his rebuke. He's trying to explain what those pillars are.

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: October 01, 2019, 12:51:45 AM »
@kopfverderber In the Does the Bible say that Earth is Stationary? thread I run those verses, including Hebrews 1:3, through the concordance indexes and find that the words in the verses mean lifting and carrying.

I don't see what the "that's about the upcoming destruction of the earth, so it doesn't count" argument is about. When the Earth is destroyed God is depicting that the earth will shake, be broken asunder, and fall, 'never to rise again'. Seems to imply that the earth is normally rising.

"Going the way of all the earth" is an interesting coin-of-phrase for people who believe that they are going to heaven when they die.

In regards to the Book of Enoch and the winds which "bear up the earth", are you now saying that the Earth is wind-hovering in place, perfectly stationary on winds? Interesting that God would create such complexity to do that, rather than to use the winds to push the Earth for a purpose. We should look that one up in a concordance index as well. I am unable to find a source for the untranslated version, however.

I think reading a few verses in isolation is the wrong approach. If we approach the bible from a scholar perspective in order to study the biblical cosmology we need to look at it as a whole  in its ancient middle east context.

In doing so scholars are trying to answer the question: what did ancient Hebrews believe? Our current scientific understanding be it RE or UA is not really relevant to answer that question.

Did ancient Hebrews believe that the earth is flat? Yes. Did they believe that the earth is moving upwards? No, I don't think this is a tenable position. You might find a verse or two which could be interpreted in such a way, but such proposition would not be consistent with many other verses. The goal is to arrive to consistent cosmology.

A different approach is that of a bible literalist trying to make biblical cosmology fit their own world view. This is an almost impossible task for RE literalists. FE literalists on the other hand have a much easier time doing this, but it's not completely free of issues and certainly adding UA to the mix creates more issues. 

Regarding Hebrews 1:3. Biblical scholar tend to interpret  upholding (Φερων) as sustaining or preserving.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/1-3.htm

This interpretation is based not only on this particular verse, but considering other verses where the word Φερων is used.

On Isaiah 24:20.  If I fall not rise again, does it mean that I'm normally rising? I don't think so. The dead fall not to rise again.

The hebrew word used is qūm
Verb - Qal - Infinitive construct
Strong's Hebrew 6965: To arise, stand up, stand
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/24-20.htm


71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 30, 2019, 04:20:47 PM »
If the writers of the bible thought that the earth is moving upwards, they would have clearly stated it, but they didn't.

It appears to me that they did:

Isaiah 24:

The earth is broken asunder,
The earth is split through,
The earth is shaken violently.
The earth reels to and fro like a drunkard
And it totters like a shack,
For its transgression is heavy upon it,
And it will fall, never to rise again

1 Kings 2:

"As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, 'I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.'"

Hebrews 1:3 AMP

"The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. "

NAH 1:5 YLT

"Mountains have shaken because of Him, And the hills have been melted; And lifted up is the earth at His presence, And the world and all dwelling in it. "

Quote
And there's of course the book of Enoch, which clarifies a lot of things.

Yes, it does. It says that the Earth is being pushed up by winds:

https://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-18/

"3. I also beheld the four winds, which bear up the earth, and the firmament of heaven."

Isn't Isaiah 24 a prophecy of the destruction of the earth. How does a prophecy of earthquakes and other catastrophes relate to UA?

For 1 Kings 2, I don't get what is the relationship with UA.

Hebrews 1:3 is very far fetched and I'm not sure which translation you are using. This is the one I found:
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"
To uphold is not to accelerate upwards. Isn't that to hold something in place?

NAH 1:5 Again destruction prophecy concerning Niniveh, hardly anything to do with upwards accelerating earth.

The bible also speaks of waters above the heaven and under the earth. In the biblical cosmology the earth is surrounded by waters. Just like in Babylonian or other ancient middle east cosmologies, the Hebrews didn't have the concept of empty space we have today. Can UA push on  təhôm, the great deep?

There also bible verses which would indicate the sun rises from a gate at the eastern edge of the world and sets at another gate on the west, as opposed to FE model with only south edge. The book of Enoch further confirms the portals and northern edges of the world are cited as well.  All in all the book of Enoch seems to have a lot of things which contradict modern FE.

Of Enoch 18 I found different translations, winds are said to support or bear the earth and heaven, as in carrying its weight, not to lift it, or accelerate it. The winds are also said to be released from storehouses and then be placed between heaven and earth. Again I don't see any support for UA, but I guess one should look at the Hebrew word used.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 30, 2019, 12:27:10 PM »
If the writers of the bible thought that the earth is moving upwards, they would have clearly stated it, but they didn't.  However I think the verse by verse approach is wrong. In order to understand biblical cosmology you have to look at the whole picture. Then you get something like this:



This cosmology seems to me fundamentally incompatible with UA. Maybe it's just me, or maybe not: Did any of the scholars researching biblical cosmology pointed at an upwards accelerating earth? I haven't found any.

And there's of course the book of Enoch, which clarifies a lot of things.

73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 30, 2019, 11:30:17 AM »
To me biblical cosmology is that of a static flat earth. Not rotating, not orbiting ad not rising upwards, just not moving.

Nothing in the bible indicates that the earth is a rotating sphere.Biblical apologist started interpreting some verses of the bible as suggesting a rotating sphere only after it had been discovered the the earth is a rotating sphere.

Likewise nothing in the bible suggest that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards. This interpretation  came about only after UA was developed. FES is interpreting the bible to fit UA theory.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 30, 2019, 10:01:03 AM »
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the verse about the earth being "fixed and immovable" contradict the whole notion of Universal Acceleration?
It's clearly referencing the equivalence principle.
How so?  It seems to me that the biblical claim of "fixed and immovable" is pretty much the exact opposite of the FE "constant acceleration" claim.
As far as those on the surface are concerned, it is fixed and immovable - meaning they can choose their preferred frame of reference. In so much as it does move from other frames of reference, it's fixed and immovable from its path and its jerk is 0. You see a similar argument in biblical literalists that are round earthers who claim it is fixed and immovable within its orbit. The passage is talking about the permanence of God's work, most notably the Earth itself.

If you start making interpretations then you are not reading the bible literally anymore. The bible says that the earth is immovable and fixed on its foundation. That goes for both FE and RE bible "literalist".

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 27, 2019, 02:27:34 PM »
How does the Bible prove the Earth is flat? Verses contradict each other about the Earth's shape. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a circle, but Isaiah 11:12 (KJV) says the Earth has corners. The Bible isn't a literal description of the Earth, but is meant to be understandable, no matter your beliefs.
A circle is an equilateral polygon with infinite corners.

Isaiah 11:12 speaks of four corners or "ends" in other translations, not an infinite number. The Hebrew word used is "kanaph", which from what I found means edge or extremity. I don't think the meaning here is a geometrical corner or angle.

The use of the word "corner" could be an English translation thing. I looked some Spanish and German translation and the word used is "ends" or similar.


76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 27, 2019, 08:05:43 AM »
I think the bible has indeed a flat earth cosmology, which is what you would expect given the period when it was written. That's IMHO the rational conclusion from looking at it objectively, as one would look at any other ancient religious document.

Sure you can find some contradicting verses, which is also not surprising considering it was written by many different people over a long period of time. But as a whole biblical cosmology is FE.

Rowbotham's FE is pretty much based on literal interpretation of biblical cosmology, so it matches it very well.

I think most modern Christians don't have a problem with the bible not being factually correct and are OK with interpreting the bible in the light of scientific fact. The shape of the earth isn't the central point of the bible.

Other Christians however think the bible is inerrant and should be read literally. For those it's much more difficult to get around ancient biblical cosmology. It requires some rather difficult interpretation acrobatics.

77
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 27, 2019, 06:36:46 AM »
Cables are pointed out on several videos depicting ISS astronauts.
I'll give you a hint: if you can see the ceiling, then they most likely didn't use cable rigging.  Also, cable rigging generally doesn't give you very many axes of movement.
It gives you all the axes you need...I watch cable rigging in use at football stadiums across the country here in the US...so does 100 million other people every week.
That's nice.  The ISS may be as long as a football stadium, but it has nowhere near as much internal volume.  The inside of the various modules is probably not much more than 2 meters or so on a side.  There just isn't enough room for the cable rigging, especially when you can see all 4 walls at once.
Cable rigging isn't that difficult to eliminate from view.

Even when attending a football game, the cable rigging is difficult see.

With cable rigging you wouldn't have an astronaut going from room to room through several hatches in all possible 3D directions. And it's 50 minutes of it filmed in one go. I bet you can't tell us  which wall is "up" and which one is "down" in that video?

With cable rigging you can't make videos of astronauts moving all over the place and spinning or playing football.

Hollywood movies using cables have the actors not moving much and doing few things,   because that's simply what cables allow.

It seems the only reason you are rejecting the ISS videos is because they shatter your world view.

78
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: September 27, 2019, 05:30:00 AM »

79
Flat Earth General / Re: Don't Claim Something Doesn't Exist : AE Map
« on: September 26, 2019, 11:30:01 PM »
Before acknowledging the one and only PHEW FE, here's what will make you quiet :')



I see you like the eclipse from the thread I created a few weeks ago. While I agree the eclipse is awesome I don't see what it has to do with Al Biruni. Is there something you are trying to say or you just like posting eclipse gifs?

Thank you for the solar eclipse gif. Your gif weapon became the destroyer of RE model, at the same time it came up as the clue point for PHEW FE. 8)

I have said that this solar eclipse is only possible if the sun is CLOSE, and the distance between the sun and rahu is CLOSE too. Plus, of course: PHEW FE model.

Gleason's FE map got dismissed, RE map got knocked out ;D

This looks like another empty claim of yours, why would this eclipse destroy RE?

Given the fact that NASA predicted the path of this eclipse using the RE model and physics, it's easy to conclude that the eclipse fits RE very well and neither phew nor rahu are necessary for this eclipse to be possible.

80
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 26, 2019, 12:07:54 PM »
Here's a 360° video of Russian cosmonauts playing football at the ISS. The first one to find the cables wins.


81
Flat Earth General / Re: Don't Claim Something Doesn't Exist : AE Map
« on: September 26, 2019, 08:15:02 AM »
Before acknowledging the one and only PHEW FE, here's what will make you quiet :')



I see you like the eclipse from the thread I created a few weeks ago. While I agree the eclipse is awesome I don't see what it has to do with Al Biruni. Is there something you are trying to say or you just like posting eclipse gifs?

82
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
« on: September 26, 2019, 05:43:17 AM »
Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God.

Evolution is supported by great amounts of evidence, that's why evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologist and scientist in general, religious and non-religious.

Creationism on the other hand has zero evidence.  It's a backwards idea supported by a bunch of religious zealots.

83
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 26, 2019, 05:26:58 AM »
Quote from: kopfverderber link=topic=83198.msg2206487#msg2206487
So you still don't answer how the ISS videos are done. [/quote
Maybe you missed my answer, so I will repeat it.

The ISS videos are done the same way as the films Gravity and other sci fi films are done.
[quote author=kopfverderber link=topic=83198.msg2206487#msg2206487
Gravity is very well done, but it doesn't come close to what you see in the ISS videos.

Gravity has many scenes in space where the actors wear astronaut suits. These were filmed underwater. This obviously doesn't apply to ISS videos were astronauts are not wearing suits.

Other scenes were filmed using cables and similar techniques. This wouldn't be possible for the ISS videos we have shown for the reasons already explained.

So what is it? Do you think the 50 minutes ISS video is done underwater? or is it with cables? or you still don't know?
With CGI.

Cables are pointed out on several videos depicting ISS astronauts.

Did you even watch the video? Exactly what parts of the video are done with CGI and how? 

And what cables are you talking about? He moves literally everywhere around the ISS, where are cables attached?  How comes the cables don't get entangled when he moves from one room to the other?  or when he turns around? which part is "up" and which part is "down" in that video?

84
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 26, 2019, 05:04:58 AM »

Yes a floating water ball can be rendered with a computer. But please notice in the ISS video we can see the astronaut's face and background through the bubble and how the image changes and is deformed as the water bubble changes shape and position. I'm not sure that can be done so realistically with today CGI, maybe you can share a video where this is done, so the question is settled.

However your biggest problem is not the water bubble, but zero-g videos where the astronauts move everywhere around the station for many minutes. I'm still waiting for you to explain how these videos are done.
I do not need to explain how they are done.

The fact is... it can be done.

Of course those videos can be done in a weightless enviroment  such as the one provided by the ISS orbiting the earth.

Do you know of other  ways of doing those videos or not?
The same weightlessness is portrayed in films such as Gravity, et.al.

So you still don't answer how the ISS videos are done.

Gravity is very well done, but it doesn't come close to what you see in the ISS videos.

Gravity has many scenes in space where the actors wear astronaut suits. These were filmed underwater. This obviously doesn't apply to ISS videos were astronauts are not wearing suits.

Other scenes were filmed using cables and similar techniques. This wouldn't be possible for the ISS videos we have shown for the reasons already explained.

So what is it? Do you think the 50 minutes ISS video is done underwater? or is it with cables? or you still don't know?

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: September 26, 2019, 01:30:25 AM »
The bible isn't proof of anything, let alone the shape of the earth.

Most of the bible was written at a time when flat earth was common belief, it's not a surprise that some passages can be interpreted as indicating a flat earth, although they could also be interpreted as figurative speech or other ways.

It's a question of interpretation, but the key is to realize that the bible is a theological work, not a work of science. The authors are trying to convey religious ideas, not  scientific facts. This is well understood by most Christians.

86
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: September 26, 2019, 01:08:41 AM »

87
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society Memes
« on: September 26, 2019, 12:59:26 AM »

88
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 25, 2019, 09:22:35 AM »

Yes a floating water ball can be rendered with a computer. But please notice in the ISS video we can see the astronaut's face and background through the bubble and how the image changes and is deformed as the water bubble changes shape and position. I'm not sure that can be done so realistically with today CGI, maybe you can share a video where this is done, so the question is settled.

However your biggest problem is not the water bubble, but zero-g videos where the astronauts move everywhere around the station for many minutes. I'm still waiting for you to explain how these videos are done.
I do not need to explain how they are done.

The fact is... it can be done.

Of course those videos can be done in a weightless enviroment  such as the one provided by the ISS orbiting the earth.

Do you know of other  ways of doing those videos or not?

89
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Name one, please...
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:04:31 AM »
If water is so easy to mimic, why don't you explain how it's done.

To be fair, algorithms for simulating water have gotten much better over the years.  Here's something from 2002:


Oh yeah, totally agree. What we can render these days is basically sorcery, no doubt. But the fact of the matter, to create the interactions, lighting effects, fluidity all within an environment that is hyperrealistic takes gobs of money, time, and artists. All of the ISS footage we see, to fake it, would take gobs of money, time, and artists.

Not to say that it couldn't be done, just seems highly impractical and actually quite pointless. As well, you won't see these types of effects on TBBT because of the aforementioned gobs of money, time, and artists required.
^ Nice claiming going on here!

Nice supporting???...not so much...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Your OP was Name one particular difference between the scenes of astronauts on the ISS & TBBT. You've been offered many. Probably the most explicit is a no-cut 50 minute floating tour of the ISS. And there are 100's of other clips where things are done that are wildly different from anything in your TV show.

So what are you looking for now exactly?
Exactly what you offered...

The admission it is possible to create all of the footage presented on the NASA channel in studios here on earth.

So, I am looking for nothing more.

You stated there really are no objective differences between the things capable of being created for movies and those things claimed to be real, true space events.

Sci Fi fans can be entertained without needing to go to the movies!

Yes a floating water ball can be rendered with a computer. But please notice in the ISS video we can see the astronaut's face and background through the bubble and how the image changes and is deformed as the water bubble changes shape and position. I'm not sure that can be done so realistically with today CGI, maybe you can share a video where this is done, so the question is settled.

However your biggest problem is not the water bubble, but zero-g videos where the astronauts move everywhere around the station for many minutes. I'm still waiting for you to explain how these videos are done.

90
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:53:22 AM »
Thomas Aquinas might have said "Therefore,  one  must  posit  some  first efficient cause—which everyone calls God."
but simple logic would seem to dictate that this "efficient cause—which everyone calls God" must have had had a prior cause.

As JackBlack said, God "solves nothing, all it does is push the problem back."
Either you accept God as the prior cause by faith or you do not accept God as the prior cause.
I do not believe that you can logically prove the existence of God.

It would be just as logical to claim that the "Universe" always existed as to claim that the "God" always existed, "for by faith are ye . . . ".

You don't get it! God (First Principle) can not be bound by Time, He has to be Timeless, and i explained exactly why it is so. Within the same argument i explained why Universe can't be Infinite. What is sad is that Thomas Aquinas thought (wrongly) that Universe can be Eternal, also, and i showed where he made logical mistake alowing (hypothetically) Universe to be Eternal, that is to say why his hypothetically Eternal Universe is in fact impossible, unlike God (First Principle).

God (First Principle) has to be (as Non-contingent : Necessary Being) so that any possible Contingent (Unnecessary) being can come into existence on the basis of Uncaused (Non-contingent) Substance which is an Essence of Existence.

Thomas Aquinas claims that all that we can know about God is that He exists (He is Existence, Essence of Existence), and nothing more than that.

This is why we can't know about God nothing else besides that He exists :

Being = Dynamics = Motion = Change = Presence = Existence
Non Being = Non Dynamics = No Motion = No Change = Absence = Non Existence
If Being (God) Is (Exists) then He is Nothing
If Being (God) Is Not (Doesn't Exist) then He is Something
Being = Non Being which is contradiction = Knowledge is impossible

We can rely on our logic as far as we talk about our reality which we can describe as "Time and Space", since we know that to anything which is bound by Time and Space we can justifiably apply the principle of impossibility of infinite regression of causes. However, once we attempt to step out from our reality (Time and Space), we instantly find ourselves totally helpless, since our logic all of a sudden completely falls apart.

A quick reminder to what i posted on this subject in my reply #22 :

1. PROBLEM : Time is coeval with the world. Hence, if the world began, there must have been a first moment of time. But this cannot be because it is the nature of time to join past and future (this argument is from Aristotle).
--- ANSWER : It is true that once time has begun it joins past and future, but this does not apply to the first moment of time. So, the universe has been created, but applying Aristotle's argument to God's existence we have to notice the following consequence : God can not exist in MetaTime (that is to say : God can not exist in any kind of Time), He has to exist OUT of Time!!! Since OUT of any Time is (for human reason) tantamount to Nothingness, then God is equal to Nothingness, as far as the power of our reasoning is concerned!

    2. PROBLEM :  Motion is always caused by a previous motion. Hence, there can not have been the first motion, that is, motion must be eternal. Consequently, what is in motion must be eternal as well (this argument is also from Aristotle).
--- ANSWER : Creation does not involve any sort of motion because creation is not any sort of change. In addition, God does not change in creating the world. However, if God himself is not in motion it is tantamount to Nothingness again, because :

Being = Dynamics = Motion = Change = Presence = Existence
Non Being = Non Dynamics = No Motion = No Change = Absence = Non Existence

If Being (God) Is (Exists) then He is Nothing because He can't be in motion, since if He is in motion (if he thinks/creates/becomes) he is in Time (which is measure of change which is motion), and if He is in Time then He can't create Universe at any certain point of Time, since whichever point of time He chooses to be that certain moment (of creation of (our) Time) He has to wait infinite number of preceding moments to elapse before that moment (of creation).

If Being (God) Is Not (Doesn't Exist) then He is Something because He is Not in motion and as such (motionless, timeless, non dynamic, absent (of existence)) He can't create anything, He can't think, He "is" Absent Existence which is Nothing.

3. PROBLEM : If an infinity of days had to pass before today, then today would never had arrived because it's impossible to traverse the infinite.
--- ANSWER : According to Thomas Aquinas this problem presupposes a starting day by adding to which we get to today. But there is no such starting day, and from any day in the past one can get to the present one in a finite number of steps. However, Aquinas is wrong because this problem doesn't presuppose starting day, and since there would be no starting day (if universe were eternal) one could not get to the present day in a finite number of steps. However, for the same reason God can not exist in MetaTime, He has to exist OUT of Time, because no Universe whatsoever could ever be created nor any event (any dynamics) could happen if God's mode of existence would be interchangeable to our notion of Time which is measure of change, which is motion.

That's the good old cosmological argument. Everything needs a cause, so the casual chain leads to a first cause = god. If everything needs a cause, then why doesn't god need one? It's a circular argument that leads to endless discussions. In the end the existence of god can't be proved with logical arguments, it's a question of faith.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15