Point is I don't look towards empirical data to make synthetic analysis.

Modern physics, which is distorted, can only attain analytic knowledge. It's divorced from philosophy.

Physics cannot answer all questions, you know.

That's why you have Meta-Physics.

Come on, its the dumbest view in the book, to rely exclusively on sensory perception. You know that this is erroneous. You cannot always trust your senses.

ok so light emitted from distant astronomical objects, such as galaxies, is shifted towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum, this is known as the doppler effect, and when applied to light, it is called redshift. The amount of redshift observed corresponds with the distant of said object, meaning that everything in the universe is moving away from eachother. They are moving at a rate of 71 km/s/mpc, and if you graph this, you find they must have all been "on top of eachother"

By the way my subject of expertise happens to be mathematics.

bam

big bang proved

well when you combine it with cosmic microwave backround radiation

I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a lot of mainstream dissent on Darwinism by mathematicians.

buddy

did you just ignore what i said

i gave you scientific evidence for the big bang

<:groyper:515728068275601419>

Yes, I ignored it, because you do not understand how worldviews form. How you can have faulty presuppositions. And how ''facts'' are contingent upon those preconceived ideas. Thus, what you call a fact is in fact only an interpretation, for countless theories could be made to conform to such things.

so you don't think redshift is real

its just a libtarded lie

That's why I object to modern physics. Because it's constant speculation.

do you or do you not

think redshift is real

I think it's irrelevant to what you are saying.

its very relevant

because it proves the big bang

it proves that everything is moving away from eachother, and therefore must have been closer

You didn't listen to a thing I just said.

Imagine your mind is like an operating system. Well, Addie, you were given a very faulty one. Sorry.

how old do you think the universe is?

Besides, how do you explain such things as information theory, where we have information coded within our DNA? @Riley

From everything we understand about information, it is impossible for this to originate without Mind.

wait answer my question first

how old do you think the universe is

No, because you are trying to build a strawman argument, even though I have not outwardly declared myself a creationist.

im not making an argument

im asking a question

I simply said that creationism is not how you perceive it. It's not a bunch of atheists and Protestants debating whether the world is 6000 years old.

It refers to the origin of man, which is 'creation ex nihilo'.

ok i got that

i already know

That is what makes Christianity distinct from say Platonism/Hinduism.

As Hinduism believes that the world is formed out of pre-existing matter.

can you demonstrate that a God created the universe or man?

Hence the doctrine of reincarnation of the transmigration of souls.

How can man create the universe?

man didn't

Man is a finite, fallible being. I think that makes it potently obvious that man is a created being, and everything that has a beginning, must have an end.

ok prove it

Prove what?

that man was created by a God lmfao

That everything that has a beginning must have an end?

Do you believe in higher degrees of reality?

Do you believe in essences/ideals?

what do you mean by higher degrees of reality

4 dimensions, 5th dimensions etc..

well thats what string theory predicts

though it hasnt really been confirmed yet

as far as i know

Phhh, you cannot escape speculative theories, can you?

Do numbers exist?

thats not very relevant lmao

It is relevant.

Because this is outside of the material realm.

numbers simply quantify the material realm

This is to presuppose that there is a world outside of our own, a more 'real' world I suppose.

.

But they are not. Numbers are universal. They exist independent of your mind's perception.

There is an objective reality.

uhh ok?

I believe in a celestial hierarchy, and the existence of the supreme Being/the one, manifested as pure Being, whose essence is that of pure truth, pure beauty, etc ...

ok can you prove it

<:garfilf:606968189640769668>

I can and I have.

And I could continue to do so.

no, no you havnet

<:garfilf:606968189640769668>

you have been vague this entire conversation

You are displaying what is called 'cognitive dissonance'.

i asked you to prove that God created man

and you started talking about whether or not numbers are real

like

can you answer the damn question?

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person's belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person."

alright so we are going to continue to dodge the question

Well, seen as you love analytic data and modern revelations so much, I guess you the example of DNA.

And how this requires a Mind.

ok what about DNA

A mind independent of the world.

biochemistry is not my specialty but ill give it a shot

ok

prove it

<:groyper:515728068275601419>

You don't need to be versed in biochemistry.

You only need to have a basic understanding of information theory, as well as understanding the Mind vs Matter debate.

The problem with you is you've been trained all your life to only believe in sensory data. That to you is what is called science.

Darwinism actually rejects logic.

Modern scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson will even say things like how we don't need philosophy anymore.

ok so you arent goign to prove it

I literally just gave you some fucking information, tranny.

yoru sorta going off on a tangent here

oh boy we are resorting to insults