The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Craig4]

What's your beef with Jesus? I mean you present Jesus as if he was a Vampire in a nightmare you had during delirium causing fever.

Why are you so impressed with him?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Constantine the Great (Κωνσταντίνος ο Μέγας) was the last Roman Emperor (303 AD)

You can't get anything right can you? Here are all the Roman emperors after Constantine the Great.

Galerius Valerius Maximinus (310–313 CE)
Licinius (308–324 CE)
Constantine II (337–340 CE)
Constantius II (337–361 CE)
Constans I (337–350 CE)
Gallus Caesar (351–354 CE)
Julian (361–363 CE)
Jovian (363–364 CE)
Valentinian I (west, 364–375 CE)
Valens (east, 364–378 CE)
Gratian (west, 367–383 CE; coemperor with Valentinian I)
Valentinian II (375–392 CE; crowned as child)
Theodosius I (east, 379–392 CE; east and west, 392–395 CE)
Arcadius (east, 383–395 CE, coemperor; 395–402 CE, sole emperor)
Magnus Maximus (west, 383–388 CE)
Honorius (west, 393–395 CE, coemperor; 395–423 CE, sole emperor)
Theodosius II (east, 408–450 CE)
Constantius III (west, 421 CE, coemperor)
Valentinian III (west, 425–455 CE)
Marcian (east, 450–457 CE)
Petronius Maximus (west, March 17–May 31, 455 CE)
Avitus (west, 455–456 CE)
Majorian (west, 457–461 CE)
Libius Severus (west, 461–465 CE)
Anthemius (west, 467–472 CE)
Olybrius (west, April–November 472 CE)
Glycerius (west, 473–474 CE)
Julius Nepos (west, 474–475 CE)
Romulus Augustulus (west, 475–476 CE)
Leo I (east, 457–474 CE)
Leo II (east, 474 CE)
Zeno (east, 474–491 CE)

You really don't have a clue about basic history and science, do you?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Still though, it could have taken place by itself. The propability (correct spelling: "probability")of yhe (correct spelling :"the") things you mention, let alone of plannet (correct spelling :"Planet") Earth to find itself just at the right distance from the Sun, or the Universe to function so well on its own, simply doesn't cut it.

If Earth was closer to the sun, another sort of life would have arisen. It is because Earth was already at the current distance to the sun that DNA and evolution allowed for the type of living creatures we see on Earth to start evolving 3.9 billion years ago.

Everyone here knows you can't grasp that basic concept as you don't believe in evolution and you don't know how evolution works.

Why did your "God"wait 13.7 billion years from the start of the universe to "create" modern humans? Was he playing golf or something like that?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

a certain Force within Nature caused the Evolution to happen;

Tell us what this "certain force within nature" was?

Tell us how this "certain force within nature" introduced new advantageous DNA sequences into a species' DNA?

Do this so we can all laugh at you some more. Then go away and post your religious crap, on a religious forum.

 

[tazanastazio]

You can't get anything right can you? Here are all the Roman emperors after Constantine the Great.

Galerius Valerius Maximinus (310–313 CE)
Licinius (308–324 CE)
Constantine II (337–340 CE)...

And you can?

Diocletian, Constantine 1, Constantine 2, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian 1 and Theodosius 1, ruled both East and West, with other emperors in between ruling elther East or West.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors


Bravo! You can Google; so does an 8 year old. But you missed the details: The first political division was done by Diocletian. Theodosius 1, the last emperor to rule both the East and the West of the empire, divided the empire to his two sons. The Western empire lasted till 476 AD, and the Eastern till 1453 as the Byzantine Empire. You said the Romans brought Christianity and I was pointing out the ridiculousness of neglecting hundreds of years of prosecution of Christians by the Romans, to only focus on the times of the Roman emperor Constantine 1, who had effectively started the transition of the Roman empire to the Byzantine by moving the capital from Rome to a village called Byzantium, where he built the city of Constantinople. Historians consider the beginning of the Byzantine empire, that time, 330 AD. The Eastern Roman empire is considered by historians as the Byzantine Empire, ever since that era.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/byzantine-empire

Tell us what this "certain force within nature" was?

Tell us how this "certain force within nature" introduced new advantageous DNA sequences into a species' DNA?

I answered already, as I do ALWAYS, I don't run on the dodge like you, changing the subject and posting links:

The Infinite! / God.

Now stop dodging the question as usual, which was:

If as you say, Evolution happened on it's own, or the Universe popped up on it's own; then even in that case, a certain Force within Nature caused the Evolution to happen; and within the "non-dimentional nothingness, caused the Universe to pop up within that "non-dimentional" / "non-denominational" nothingness, and to get itself in order! What are you saying happened?

As for your spelling skills, I've already told you, join a spelling-bee contest.

 

[8enotto]

And if someone rejects a god of the gaps in human knowledge for lack of substance?

Your ideas only work for people with some faith in a god and a very small understanding of even basic sciences and history. You will never gain converts to your religion outside of that group.

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>

Nope, in the end, if you are incapable of presenting anything remotely coherent or evidentially supported, you remain a remnant of the crank fringe and nobody can extract you from your plainly religious belief. You are quite literally, out on your own. But please do not pretend that your ideas intersect with reality at any point. To do so insults anyone in possession of a brain cell.

Now, I can understand your feud with Ellard. He has a gripe with you and pretty much followed you here and prolonged that feud. I fully agree that Ellard has done that.

But here is the thing. He was morally right to do so. He was factually right to do so. He was logically right to do so.

Why, you might ask? Because I consider it an imperative that somebody stand up to the sea of utter crap that folks like you vomit upon the internet .

Make no mistake, these ideas that you propagate are the very dark edges of the internet and you are directly responsible for propagating that level of abject ignorance.

If you believe in an immortal soul, you may wish to pause and consider what you are doing to your own. But as usual with blind faithful, introspection is impossible. They don't understand it.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Bravo! You can Google

No. I know my Roman and Christian history as I am educated. You are not educated and claimed the Roman emperors ended with Constantine.

The first political division was done by Diocletian.

That's right. I have been to his palace in Split while touring Roman archaeology in Croatia on my way to Moscow.

Why are you pretending to be lecturing me, who knows history, when you don't have a clue?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The Infinite! / God.

So you admit that you are another uneducated religious lunatic, spamming our science forum about your "God". I assume you got thrown off religious forums as you have not read the Bible.

Tell us your little story about the radioactive angels again. That story was hilarious!

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Now, I can understand your feud with Ellard. He has a gripe with you and pretty much followed you here and prolonged that feud. I fully agree that Ellard has done that..

Check the join dates. Tanastanzio followed me here.

Matthew Ellard: Joined 2009
Tanastanzio: Joined 2019.

I ran the anti holocaust denial sub forum at the Skeptic Society Forum from 2009 until the movement collapsed with the archaeological survey at Treblinka II by Dr Caroline Colls. I was also posting against the few holocaust deniers who posted here from 2009. I originally studied archaeology and anthropological prehistory before becoming a tax lawyer.

 

[Craig4]

And you can?

Diocletian, Constantine 1, Constantine 2, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian 1 and Theodosius 1, ruled both East and West, with other emperors in between ruling elther East or West.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors


Bravo! You can Google; so does an 8 year old. But you missed the details: The first political division was done by Diocletian. Theodosius 1, the last emperor to rule both the East and the West of the empire, divided the empire to his two sons. The Western empire lasted till 476 AD, and the Eastern till 1453 as the Byzantine Empire. You said the Romans brought Christianity and I was pointing out the ridiculousness of neglecting hundreds of years of prosecution of Christians by the Romans, to only focus on the times of the Roman emperor Constantine 1, who had effectively started the transition of the Roman empire to the Byzantine by moving the capital from Rome to a village called Byzantium, where he built the city of Constantinople. Historians consider the beginning of the Byzantine empire, that time, 330 AD. The Eastern Roman empire is considered by historians as the Byzantine Empire, ever since that era.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/byzantine-empire




I answered already, as I do ALWAYS, I don't run on the dodge like you, changing the subject and posting links:

The Infinite! / God.

Now stop dodging the question as usual, which was:

If as you say, Evolution happened on it's own, or the Universe popped up on it's own; then even in that case, a certain Force within Nature caused the Evolution to happen; and within the "non-dimentional nothingness, caused the Universe to pop up within that "non-dimentional" / "non-denominational" nothingness, and to get itself in order! What are you saying happened?

As for your spelling skills, I've already told you, join a spelling-bee contest.

But why are you so impressed with Jesus? All he did was have public BDSM sex with some Romans on a Friday afternoon, slept it of on Saturday and got up early on a Sunday and then BAM, sins are forgiven because, reasons. Seems odd that you'd think that was so impressive.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

But why are you so impressed with Jesus? All he did was have public BDSM sex with some Romans on a Friday afternoon, slept it of on Saturday and got up early on a Sunday and then BAM, sins are forgiven because, reasons. Seems odd that you'd think that was so impressive.

Jesus was a con artist. He claimed he died for our sins, but apparently he "got better" and lives in heaven watching over us doing things (having showers, having sex, going to the toilet and so on)

He broke Roman law and disrupted tax collection at the money exchange vendors at the temple. The legislative punishment under Roman law was beheading, but he ran away. Poor Romans. They were keeping the peace and quiet until that troublemaker Jesus stopped the Roman tax department from doing its important work.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You said the Romans brought Christianity

Learn to read English. I said Constantine made Christianity the state religion.

Prior to that Christianity was just another mystery cult, brought back by the legions fighting in Palestine, when cremation was being replaced by burial around the second century.

 

[Parsman]

In reply to Tazanastazio. Ridiculous. You are stating what you believe was "Roman". Till the end of the Byzantine Empire (and please note the name "Byzantine Empire" is one we use for convenience to identify an era in history, not a name that the people themselves ever used) in 1453 the Emperors regarded themselves as the rulers of what was left of the Roman empire. They called themselves Roman. They used Roman titles. They were now spoken in Greek and the language of the Empire had become Greek but they saw themselves as Roman right to the end. So the list given was actually a little short and the last Roman Emperor was actually Constantine XI (sometimes numbered XIV depending on the regnal numbering system used) who died defending Constantinople in 1453. And even then the ruling Ottomans adopted as one of their titles "Caesar of the Romans" so you could argue that the idea of a Roman Emperor doesn't die out until the end of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. As has been noted above you don't seem to have much of a grasp of history.

 

[tazanastazio]

In reply to Tazanastazio. Ridiculous. You are stating what you believe was "Roman". Till the end of the Byzantine Empire (and please note the name "Byzantine Empire" is one we use for convenience to identify an era in history, not a name that the people themselves ever used) in 1453 the Emperors regarded themselves as the rulers of what was left of the Roman empire. They called themselves Roman. They used Roman titles. They were now spoken in Greek and the language of the Empire had become Greek but they saw themselves as Roman right to the end. So the list given was actually a little short and the last Roman Emperor was actually Constantine XI (sometimes numbered XIV depending on the regnal numbering system used) who died defending Constantinople in 1453. And even then the ruling Ottomans adopted as one of their titles "Caesar of the Romans" so you could argue that the idea of a Roman Emperor doesn't die out until the end of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. As has been noted above you don't seem to have much of a grasp of history.

I agree on the above (except for the "ridiculous" part). The reason I provided the links is also due to lack of time to elaborate. In one of the links, there is a reference on the sentiment of the Byzantine as Romans.

 

[tazanastazio]

Learn to read English. I said Constantine made Christianity the state religion.

Prior to that Christianity was just another mystery cult, brought back by the legions fighting in Palestine, when cremation was being replaced by burial around the second century.

Not "John" , "Johny."

 

[turingtest]

I see that the hoary old "probability" argument against evolution/life on earth has been raised yet again. Let me just re-post something I originally said over five years ago (with minor editing for clarity)-

The whole "proof by probability" thing is childishly ridiculous anyway. I think I've said this before, but...calculations of probability are only relevant before things happen, not afterward. If you take a standard deck of cards and lay them out one by one, the probability of any one specified, predicted lay is 1 in 8x10⁶⁷ (1 in 52x51x50x49x48...5x4x3x2). But a lay with no particular outcome predicted or aimed at (which is how evolution works- it is not normative) has the same chance as any other; and, in either case, whether predicted or not, any outcome already achieved has a 100% probability of having occurred. The argument would be that, since an outcome had an infinitesimal chance of occurrence beforehand, it can be shown, by that alone, that it never happened- that a card-player who laid out any sequence didn't actually do so because the odds were against it.

So, what about it, taz? If someone laid out a deck of cards as described above, would you really argue that the outcome was an impossible one since the probability of it was so infinitesimally small? Or would you get the point that assessing probabilities before an outcome is a proper use of the concept, but completely irrelevant afterwards? As abaddon (I think) said, the probability of any outcome which has already happened is 100%.

See, here's the thing, to me. If you wanted to argue that there was a god (or an "Infinite" or whatever) that set the whole thing in motion without any regard for how it would turn out, I wouldn't argue against it, because that would be a statement of faith that, in fact, would not conflict with the theory of evolution (or current cosmology)- it's an add-on that isn't necessary to the theory, but it doesn't negate it. But if you want to argue that god not only threw the cards up in the air, resulting in the lay we have, but guided the order and position of each card, then you need more evidence than a "probability" argument that only works as a circle- you end up assessing an outcome as, by definition, an aim only because your argument doesn't work if you don't.

 

[tazanastazio]

And if someone rejects a god of the gaps in human knowledge for lack of substance?

Your ideas only work for people with some faith in a god and a very small understanding of even basic sciences and history. You will never gain converts to your religion outside of that group.

I am not looking for "converts." This is a skeptics forum, and I, as a true skeptic, question the inability of science, to provide an adequate, if not sound, explanation, of what caused the beginning, of a given begining; following an infinite regression in time; without God, causing it. Infinitism provided that explanation. Infinitism is a philosophy, not a religion; as such, no "converts" are needed. Skepticism is not neglecting or omitting necessary references to matters, and leaving things out of a theory, for convenience.

 

[tazanastazio]

Jesus was a con artist. He claimed he died for our sins, but apparently he "got better" and lives in heaven watching over us doing things (having showers, having sex, going to the toilet and so on)

The above mentioned, all natural functions of humanity; till the end of time.

He broke Roman law and disrupted tax collection at the money exchange vendors at the temple. The legislative punishment under Roman law was beheading, but he ran away. Poor Romans. They were keeping the peace and quiet until that troublemaker Jesus stopped the Roman tax department from doing its important work.

False statement; "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God."

 

[Craig4]

The above mentioned, all natural functions of humanity; till the end of time.



False statement; "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God."

Gods are myth the world would do well to grow out of.