Strange

But only people who already believe in gods think that is the case. Those are not rational or empirical arguments. Just statements of belief. Just as baseless as if they came from someone else (ie revelation). It sounds like rather smug way of claiming that you made up your beliefs instead of reading them in a book. That is rejected by people who believe in different gods, anyway. And some Christians.

No such thing Only if you have objective evidence of gods

That is just post hoc rationalisation of existing beliefs

But there is no rationality. Just belief. So there is nothing much to discuss. Person A: "I believe in gods" Person B: "I don't" Person A: "Oh. Person B: "..." End of discussion.

True. But your gods have not shown any sign of appearing or helping out with any problems. It is almost as if they don't exist.

OK. It was just wrong, then

Yes, and because of the, when we look at very distant areas of the universe, they are not the same as the local area (denser, different stars and galaxies, etc). However, everywhere we look at that time (ie. at that distance) is homogeneous. And, when we take into account the changes over time, we can see that on a large scale the universe is homogeneous. And yes, someone in that past would have seen a homogeneous universe around them, but one that is denser than the one we see (eg. galaxies would have been closer together). Obviously not. As has been explained to you many times, the universe is evolving from a hot dense state. It looked different in the past. Yes, that is a good way of putting it. Wherever you are in the universe, it will appear the same (on large enough scales). Can I suggest that if you want to relate this to your bizarre personal understanding of what 'now' means, that you do it in one of your existing threads or start a new one. Please do not hijack yet another thread with your inability to understand that light travels at a finite speed. Thank you.

You are not really engaging in a discussion here. I was trying to be helpful and provoke discussion by pointing out that this sounds like the basic concepts of thermodynamics (eg. heat will flow from a hotter to a cooler body, leading to equilibrium). This also leads to things settling into a minimum energy configuration, which is why planets orbit stars and water flows downhill to the sea.

More comma problems? Should that have been: "No god is real" and "Only, his problems remain are in our imagination"

A large part of philosophy is arguing semantics. For example, when discussing free will, what does "free" mean, what does "will" mean, which version of "free will" are we discussing, and so on. Defining and understanding exactly what these words and concepts mean (ie. semantics) is an essential part of any such discussion. (Using "semantics" to dismiss an argument is one of my pet hates: it indicates lazy thinking, that the person don't really care what the discussion is about.) Also, it's not clear who your criticism was addressed to. Maybe everybody?

It is the differences in how we perceive time and how science describes it (and the fact that different parts of physics treat it in different ways). As the article says: I expected not to like the ideas presented in the article but, in fact, I found it a fascinating idea.

The always-excellent Ethan Siegel has written about this. He is sceptical of the result Nicely, he has highlighted as a problem one of the things I mentioned. Also the small sample size and the data quality. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/04/10/new-study-challenging-the-universes-expansion-deserves-lots-of-skepticism/#5083c674441c

Interesting article on how using "intuitionist" mathematics might explain why time appears to flow and even unite quantum and classical theory: https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/ Some more background here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism

We do seem to have had more new members here posting nonsense though

We can't really do anything until spam is posted. Generally, it is most useful if people reports posts in existing threads that are spam. If spammers start a new thread, we are as likely to spot it as anyone else. But if it looks like it has been missed, then feel free to report it. I assume it was just copied from some random site.

It was a hiajck. Also, I am 99% certain the poster is a spammer, posting nonsense before posting some sort of spam.

How does your test work? Are you detecting viral genes? Or antibodies? What is the sensitivity? What s the accuracy?

What does "vengeance by proxy" mean?

These sound like the basic ides of thermodynamics, which do drive a lot of interactions in the world. But with the advantage that they are quantified (ie. mathematical laws) so they are useful. Your ASD concept sounds a bit too vague to be useful, to me.

I'm not sure. Having a culture based on a vengeful god leads to rules like "an eye for an eye", cutting off the hands of theives, etc. So it hurts a lot of people. Also, I don't understand "being vengeful, really doesn't hurt anyone but me." If you are vengeful, then you will hurt others. If your chosen god is vengeful, then you will be wishing hurt on others (as you say, by proxy).

Perhaps you feel that way because you have grown up with a vengeful (=malicious) god as part of your background?

That wasn't a quote from you, that was my comment on what you said (in the bit quoted immediately above). As a clue, things that are quoting you are in boxes with your name one. Sheesh. So, I repeat, you said: OK. This is me speaking again now. The bit above is quoted from you. My comment on the above is: You started out saying that light travels at "speed less than c" (see the quote above). So you cannot now say (note, tricky bit here: another quote from you) OK. Now back to me speaking again: You cannot both claim that the speed of light is less than c but also claim that light travels at c. This is contradictory. So, apart from demonstrating that you cannot read, all you have done is ignored the substantial points in my post (and every other attempted explanation by others). And then simply repeated your erroneous assertions. I will suggest that this thread is closed as you are clearly unwilling to learn. And unable to justify your claims with evidence (obviously, because they are wrong).

You have included the extra time (+t) but you have not included the extra distance (+d). I am assuming you have never studied calculus? It is not "more accurate" because it give the wrong result. And disagrees with fundamental physics. How do you ensure the invariance of the speed of light with this approach? I quoted your post. Are you saying you didn't write that? That some went in and changed your words? Your entire thesis has been about changing the speed of light. You can't now claim that you don't want to change the speed of light. RATE OF ENERGY IS NOT SPEED. IT IS POWER Wrongly.

Because your very first post concluded with: So either light propagates at c or it doesn't. You need to decide which it is. And, no you cannot redefine the word "speed" to say that "light propagates at c but its speed is less than c". That is like saying: "I love chocolate, you know those long orange root vegetables." You need to come up with a new word for this quantity that you are defining. Call it "bogospeed" perhaps. Or, just maybe, why not use the existing technical term for this concept: "power"

Some people (the majority) do believe in gods. In the past, believe in gods was almost universal. But the same problems existed. So it doesn't seem relevant whether people believe or not. Maybe the problems would disappear if nobody believed in gods?