Strange

From a status message: Not sure why you can't post. There is a 5 post limit for new members on the first day (anti-spam) but you haven't reached that yet. If you are not willing to discuss your graph, then there is no point keeping this thread open. Anyone gullible enough to believe this nonsense can contact you by PM. As the claims you are making are basically impossible, it is likely that your "proofs" are the result of selective data and confirmation bias.

No.

You don't exist.

That is because Newton's law of gravity is a good approximation in many cases, but it is not always accurate. That is why General Relativity was developed, which then predicted the expansion of the universe. As all motion is relative, we can define any object to be "at rest". We usually choose the most convenient frame of reference, in practice, and then there can be objects at rest in that frame of reference. Do you have a reference for that? A bunch of guy got Nobel Prizes for showing the expansion is getting faster. I suspect it would have made he news if they had been shown to be wrong. That makes no sense. They are completely different things. The CMB is radiation we receive from the early universe. MOND is a gravity theory that has not been shown to be correct in any circumstance. Because some things grow additively. These all seem to be examples of things you misunderstand (or just don't understand at all). That is how things are. Often we do not perceive it that way. But our speed and position is space is irrelevant. The gravity on Earth is just due to the mass and radius of the Earth. Even without math, it is obvious that these "discrepancies" are just examples of your ignorance. Nothing to do with philosophy.

I suspect that if you brought up a group of people without any knowledge of gods, then some of them would invent their own. Some people in the group would believe in those gods and others wouldn't.

Why would it be?

It is one possible random sequence. Let's take an example sentence from Shakespeare: "To be or not to be." If you think that is somehow not a random sequence, that implies that if we have a machine that repeatedly generates random sequences of 18 characters, it would eventually generate all possible sequences except that one. Does that make sense to you?

This all sounds extremely implausible. You need to provide details of what this graph is and how it can predict stock market changes (which are effectively random numbers) for example. If you are not going to do this because you believe it is somehow "dangerous" then this thread might as well be closed.

I can't see how that is relevant to ... well, anything much. I don't know that an AI is "obviously" capable of achieving knowledge superior to a human. I don't think they understand the games any more than a book of rules does. But you would need to provide a precise definition of "understand" to discuss that further. And yet that was one of the idiotic anthropomorphic claims made by the poster. So it is relevant. How can it be a myth when it is something people do when they say things like "my car doesn't like going uphill" or "nature abhors a vacuum".

As you say "Are", is the question about the three symbols "6", "+" and "6"? Or did you mean "Is ..." (referring to "6 + 6")? How do you define "the same as"? How do you define "equivalent to"? As you ask about both "same" and "equivalent", do you expect two answers? Are you asking if the character strings are the same/equivalent? Are you asking if the arithmetic expressions are the same/equivalent? Are you asking if the results of the arithmetic expressions are the same/equivalent? Are asking if the meaning of the individual symbols "6", "8", "4" and "+" are the same/equivalent? I see you have moved on from (possibly) talking about arithmetic to shopping lists, and a completely different question. It is hard to see what the point is.

Reading is my main hobby. (and spending too much time on forums like this) I used to do that when I was young, because I thought I should because it is what people did. I only realised how much I hated it after I stopped doing it. A really demoralising and depressing experience. Now that is a good idea. I am not interested in sport, but I really enjoyed doing Tai Chi / Qi Gong. It is a great way to get to meet and interact with people in a low pressure situation. You can walk away afterward saying "Hi", without causing offence. Or you can stick around and talk (or just watch the dogs playing) for as long as you are comfortable. You get to see the same people repeatedly. You may never get further than, "hello, how's Fido?" You might only know people by their dog's name ("I met Fido's owner the other day"). But you might meet one or two people that you spend a bit more time with and even meet up without the dogs (weird, but it happens apparently).

And looking at Vexen's previous posts might not have helped decide. It took me a while to realise that he/she is not promoting a religious viewpoint but is either questioning it or, maybe, attacking it. (I'm still not quite sure...)

I don't think I have, but I have been accused of it plenty of times on this forum! The nearest I get to "trolling" is when I can summon the patience to be relentlessly polite to someone in the face of their idiotic posts and insults. In the early days on usenet, I did post a few really arrogant comments, but that was being young and overconfident rather than trolling. (I hope.)

I'm older than StringJunky and I'm with you on this. Apart from anything else, I want to see what happens with new theories that combine GR and QM, when we get to see a black hole close up, will we develop FTL space travel, what new technologies will we have in another 50 years ...

I thought it was quite an amusing comment so I have given an up vote to cancel the down vote. I assume whoever downvoted to thought you were being serious and "making excuses" for god behaving that way.

String theory implies supersymmetry. Evidence for supersymmetry has not been found so far and it is running out of places to "hide". https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118053-string-theory-cannot-describe-our-universe/ There are other theories that attempt to combine gravity and quantum theory. All currently untestable, but there may be more hope for them in the long run.

With an even distribution of matter, there would be no curvature (imagine the rubber sheet being pressed evenly, it would remain flat). So the presence of mass, by itself, doesn’t tell us about the overall curvature

Questions to ask before that: Was there an actual person corresponding to the Jesus in the Bible? Did the miracles actually happen? (I have read one good analysis suggesting they could be extended metaphors* for the ideas behind the new religion ) * “parables” was the word I was looking for

Sorry, you only get three goes and then it is game over! The discovery of dark energy makes it unlikely the universe will start over (as was once thought). But if it did, it is very unlikely that conditions would be identical.

Can you define exactly what you mean by “heaven”? Or is that one of the problems? Can you provide any evidence that it exists? Or is that another problem?

I agreed with the use of "knowledge" in one case. I disagree with your general point.

Granted. And I think that would be a misuse of the word knowledge (and an example of unjustified anthropomorphism). So this is another "people don't use words the way I do, and they must stop it" thread.

The article was about Behe's criticisms of evolution. So when you said "both sides" I assumed that is what you were talking about (ie. Behe on one side and evolution on the other). If you are brining in a "third side" maybe you should say what it is. No. It demonstrates that it wasn't clear (to me) what you were talking about. That is a reasonable (but perhaps untestable) hypothesis. Or at least, until we have a more complete and convincing theory of abiogenesis. But I suspect it is just another "god of the gaps" argument.

The answer to a question like this is, because that is what the god wanted to do. That is the problem with a god as an explanation. It can explain anything. So it explains nothing.

Some gods, not all. In some religions. Not others. Genes. That is not a logical argument.