Yes the Big Bang was a colossal GOD fart.

Or vomit, or sneeze, or a dump run, or maybe their excess compost, or, the list never ends when it comes to this conceptually imaginary God game labeled as religious belief.

My belief is in my Cosmic Trinary Outline/Set/Table of Contents is eternally existence in all three, complementing each other, and no one in 20 years has used any logical, common sense critical thinking to validate or invaliate my givens as presented:

1} Eternally existent, Spirit-1 God is the abstract, meta-space mind/intelligence/concepts and ego, that complements following 2 and 3 and any subcatagories of 3,

--- conceptual line of demarcation -------

2} Eternally existent, non-spirit, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,

3} Eternally existent, finite, Spirit-2, 3 and 4, dynamic, occupied space Universe .....@.....

......3a} Spirit-2 fermionic matter and bosonic forces and the newer third catagory that is hybrid particle of those two,

.......3b} eternally existent, ultra-micro, non-quantised and non-quantified ---ergo invisible to our instrumentation-- outer surface events of positive curved geodesic of Gravity ( ),

.......3c} eternally existent physical reality --to more or lesser degrees of existence at times--- that is two numerical line events --define a sine-wave pattern-- internal to my presentation of space and time horn tori,

.........3d} eternally existent, ultra-micro, non-quantised and non-quantified --ergo invisible to human instrumentation--- inner negative curved geodoesic surface events of Dark Energy )( and the diametrically opposite of the above mentioned Gravity.

Some or all of the space and time horn tori Fields of vibrational vertexes and their lines of relationships all over lap to interfere with their neighbor in various distinct patterns --based on the cubo-octahedrons 25 great 2D circles, ---that, I imagine as 3D space and time horn tori-- with a minimal tangency of interference of the outer Gravitational surface events and/or the Dark Energy inner surface events of other space and time tori. I dunno the specifics of what is possible in these regards without a good mathematically graphic demostration.

.................space....@......space.... is simple concept to grasp yet so many refuse to accept the simple, much less even pretend they understand such simplicity

@ is representation of finite Universe

...space... is the macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space

We can lead a horse to logical, common sense critical thinking conclusions, based on human observations, yet we cannot make them accept any the above conclusions. Seek truth to free us from false narrative. Or not.

@FLRW wrote in post #67: @Kermos Despite the initial 1919 data being nearly inconclusive by strict modern standards, Einstein’s light deflection prediction was conclusively verified by later, highly accurate radio and space-based astronomy. Very stupid people cannot review a lot of data

Your “conclusively verified” indicates scientific fact, but the data fails to establish “Einstein’s light deflection prediction” as a scientific fact. Look anywhere in you star bible, and you will find Einstein’s theory (conjecture, see post #20 for theory definition), yet you will not find Einstein’s fact!

You posted NO specific proof data for “Einstein’s light deflection prediction” there in your post, just some random “radio and space-based astronomy” conjecture by you, yet you wrote “Very stupid people cannot review a lot of data”.

Since your presentation about Einstein’s theory is just a poorly evidenced conjecture, then the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #68: Einstein’s light deflection prediction was conclusively verified by modern radio and space-based astronomy, achieving a precision far exceeding the historical 1919 solar eclipse measurements. Radio Astronomy and VLBI 1. Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) …snip… 2. High Precision …snip… Space-Based Astrometry 1. Spacecraft Tracking …snip… 2. Optical Mapping

Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)

Your 4 numbered points interrelate as astronomer astrologer’s cohesive VLBI.

I primarily focus with you in reference to the Big Bang as related to VLBI, General Relativity, and gravitational lensing.

It appears to me that you cannot stand on your own in this debate because a short 11 minute interval transpired between your post #67 and post #68, and your second post that I’m responding to here has the hallmarks of predominantly AI generated material - that AI is a soulless master for those who know not Master Jesus Christ.

Now, I address your lack of data. I suspect you failed to read your own citations for comprehension in their entirety, there in your post #68. Here is some VLBI raw data for you:

“810-005 211H; Wideband Very-Long Baseline Interferometry”, Christine Chang, NASA JPL Caltech, 2026

VLBI Calibrated By The Cosmic Distance Ladder

VLBI measures the temporally synchronized data collection between the arrival of radio waves emitted by what scientists believe are many distant extra-galactic quasars at various permutations of disparately located Earth-based and space-based antennas. Two antennas form the scientist sorcerer’s very long baseline with a quasar forming the third vertex of a triangle for gargantuan distance triangulation in order to bind other stellar objects into this cosmic distance ladder, such as stars in the Milky Way Galaxy being tied to this reference frame. (“VLBI”, NASA EarthData)

Post #53 specifically detailed the missing rungs of your cosmic distance ladder, including astronomer astrologer produced research indicating that quasars exist in intra-galactic context as well as in locations which contradict red-shift readings to a very high degree.

VLBI calibration founded on broken quasar readings result in fraudulent VLBI. It takes a leap of faith to believe VLBI.

VLBI Scientist’s Fabricated HIGH PRECISION

If you diligently read your citations for comprehension while cross referencing other data (do you recall writing “Very stupid people cannot review a lot of data” in your immediately prior post #67?), then you would have found that “scientists” selectively incorporate data favorable for their calculations, and this leads directly to your high priest Stephen Hawking’s star bible passage of “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

(“First Very Long Baseline Interferometry Detections at 870 μm”, Alexander W. Raymond et. al., Published by the American Astronomical Society, The Astronomical Journal, Volume 168, Number 3 2024-08-27)

High precision exists separately from estimation, that is, guesswork. The estimations in VLBI far exceed study bias. VLBI exists in the fraud zone, even the foundation for your faith.

VLBI Is Very Short Baseline Inferometry (VSBI)

The Earth’s orbit around the Sun provides a very short triangle baseline at polar opposite orbital sides for parallax calculations, so VLBI’s much smaller baseline combination of Earth vicinity (Earth-based and/or near Earth space-based) vertices to form a baseline are fantastically miniscule in relation to the scientist’s believed triangle apex fantastically gargantuan distance location at a stellar object posing as a third vertex for the triangle.

The Episcopic Model (post #53) illustrates that the triangulation lines are indistinguishable from parallel lines at merely 4 light years, yet VLBI astronomer astrologers believe their technique increased angular confinement over historical methods. I present this comparison of angle resolutions:

1. 0.0003611111° (89.9996388889°) for 30,000,000,000,000 miles (5 light years) with a 186,000,000 mile triangle baseline (Earth’s solar orbit diameter).
2. 00.0001833333° (89.9998166667°) for 60,000,000,000,000 miles (10 light years) with a 186,000,000 mile triangle baseline (Earth’s solar orbit diameter).
3. 0.0000040556° (89.9999959444°) for 2,670,000,000,000,000 miles (445 light years) with a 186,000,000 mile triangle baseline (Earth’s solar orbit diameter).
4. 0.0000000091° (89.9999999909°) for 1,800,000,000,000,000,000 miles (200,000 light years) with a 186,000,000 mile triangle baseline (Earth’s solar orbit diameter).

Split a single degree into one million slices then take 9 of those teeny tiny slices closest to a right angle (90°), and then you have the angle resolution necessary for an object far less than one million light years from Earth at 200,000 light years (see the last bullet item above), yet astronomer astrologers imagine much smaller granular degree angles for billions of light years.

VLBI astronomer astrologers believe they read maximal angular resolution at 0.00002 arcseconds which translates to 0.000000006°, but their baseline is not the very long 186,000,000 mile triangle baseline (Earth’s solar orbit diameter)! Their VLBI triangulation baseline is the Earth’s very short 7,926 mile diameter, or maybe a space-based instrument at Lagrange L2 opens that distance up to what remains a very short baseline at about 933,000 miles.

(“Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) in Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications”, By ICO-Optics.org, 2026-04-28, “Facts About Earth - Science@NASA”, “Lagrange point”, Wikipedia)

At 0.00002 arcseconds, the maximum triangulation distances from Earth are as follows:

1. baseline: 7,926 miles; maximum measurable distance: 7 light years
2. baseline: 933,000 miles; maximum measurable distance: 750 light years
3. baseline: 186,000,000 miles; maximum measurable distance: 149,000 light years

Astronomer astrologers base their 0.00002 arcsecond accuracy upon their cosmic distance ladder - that is not instrumentation accuracy, alone.

The angles are all unreasonable, so the angles fall into the faith category.

Longer triangulation baselines result in superior data collection conditions, yet shorter baselines result is unreliably difficult data acquisition. The VSBI for VLBI results in radical reduction for the maximum distance measurement between a stellar object and Earth; in other words, a stellar object must be much closer to Earth for VLBI angle determination:

1. The Earth solar orbit diameter of 186,000,000 mile triangle baseline is very short compared to a star at 445 light years (2,670,000,000,000,000 miles) away.
2. The Lagrange L2/Earth 933,000 baseline is very, very short compared to a star at 10 light years (60,000,000,000,000 miles) away.
3. The Earth diameter 7,926 mile baseline is very, very, very short compared to a star at 5 light years (30,000,000,000,000 miles) away.

Since VLBI’s foundation of VSBI undermines the VLBI, then VLBI triangulation exclusively supports a leap of faith.

VLBI Faith-based Calculations

Einstein’s light deflection E=MC2 nonscience is conclusively verified as a leap of faith by logical analysis of astronomer astrologers star bible’s VLBI modern radio and space-based astronomy, and gravitational lensing currently achieves no precision exceeding the historical 1919 solar eclipse measurements because General Relativity is part of the Big Bang Myth.

Your #1 post refers to Hebrews 11, but takes a limited scope of what faith really is. Many equate "faith" to belief, but belief is merely an attitude of choice that makes no demands on anyone to act on what they believe, whereas Paul, throughout Hebrews, makes numerous references to the word, faith. In compiling all those Paulian references, it is obvious that Paul is placing greater assurance that faith is an action word, not one of mere choice to believe something where there is no self-compulsion to act on it. If faith does not drive resulting action, it simply is not faith. A common "Christian" attitude is that faith does not require "works," i.e., action because of faith. Rather, the argument is that faith alone is sufficient. Excuse my French, but, bullshyte. If faith is, as said uyp front in Hebrews 11: 1, that "faith is the assurance of what we hope for," why hope for anything if we're just going to sit on it and not do an ything about it? That makes zero sense.

And acting on faith is absolutely more than based on what we "see," or not [mostly what we don't see], but also what we don't sense by hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching. Basically, our given five senses, which are the basis for empirical evidence; all that science demands. And science is beginning to acknowledge that empirical evidence may actually have additional senses that other animals have [magnetic north, and echo location, for example], which humans do not naturally express, but that does not say these other senses cannot be learned by humans. Science is beginning to recognize that we can. I think faith is an additional sense that some have learned how to use, and many have not.

A past-eternal universe bypasses the need for a first cause, therefore, a starting premise is unnecessary. Logic only demands an explanation for things that begin to exist, but eternity implies no beginning and no end. Therefore, logic is not capable, on its own, of demonstrating eternity unless one is able to shift from a sequential proof to a timeless necessary existence.

See: https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/incomplete-big-bang-explanations-lead-pe/

Incomplete big bang explanations lead people to think a leap of faith is required. It isn’t.

FYI, I have a degree from MIT in Nuclear Engineering Science.

I've repeated this post to you elsewhere because I expected such a response. The problem you have here is the age-old premise that repetition, expecting different results, is the clear evidence of insanity

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #70: @Kermos Something from nothing or always something…Both are magical Initiation and evolution either way. So intellectual primate …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Instead of your nonsense nonscience prose, why don’t you confidently respond to post #69 in a manner exceeding your evolutionism “intellectual primate” level?

You don't see. That sums it up. Thanks.

@FLRW wrote in post #72: Hmmm, who should we believe, Kermos or Stephen Hawking? …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

Thank you for admitting your “believe” (faith) is your cornerstone for the Big Bang, but I didn’t ask for you to identify whom you believe about the Big Bang. Look, you have no good evidence for the Big Bang, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith. You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Do you ever watch The Big Bang Theory on TV? The actor who plays Sheldon Cooper is my brother. Well, my fraternity brother.

The Big Bang is a fake theory. To think it took humans billions of years to learn how to read, write and communicate just doesn’t make sense.

Human ignorance is simple to understand, whereas scientific theory is sometimes less so...And theistic hypothesising is ludicrous, but to be expected I suppose.

And Kermos is as Kermos decides to do, relative to their acquired personality.

And no amount of verbiage and diatribe will alleviate the intellectual primates lack of a definitive answer.

@fauxlaw wrote in post #75: @Kermos You’re saying that faith = belief. …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Thanks for your interest. I diligently proceed through the posts chronologically, so I responded to your Big Bang poor evidence post 46 in my post #74 in which I delineated in chronologically factual event detail precisely the process of you engaging in hypocrisy over analogy presentation instead of you addressing the ball analogy as a contributing debate argument about the Big Bang as a leap of faith.

Let’s recap.

46: My rolling ball analogy

65: My reminder to you about 46

74: Your response to 46

76: My rebuttal to 74

89: Your response to 65, as if 74 came before 65 and as if 76 didn’t exist

You can be forgiven for confusing the chronology, just know that you are the one who’s confused.

Happy to hear your response to 76 if you get around to it.

@Double_R wrote in post #76: @Kermos No, I didn’t. I presented a very simple analogy designed to establish a very simple logical principal

You most certainly did present poor evidence for the Big Bang. I presented a 3 ball analogy which accurately reveals your analogy’s 1 ball and 7 ball logic design flaws in post #35.

@Double_R wrote in post #76: …snip… you can reach a reasonable conclusion as to what caused the balls to start rolling. That’s not faith.

It is faith without human witness was established in response to your 1 ball analogy in scope of this thread with “You confused human observation (rolling ball) with the absence of human observation (Big Bang)” (my post #24 to you).

@Double_R wrote in post #76: …snip… And no, it’s not hypocrisy to expand on my own analogy while criticizing your expansion of my analogy.

I created a new analogy. I expanded on the one ball concept, but my analogy contained enough data to establish the error of your “trace back” concept in your 1 ball analogy and your 7 ball analogy.

Your hypocrisy lies in your desire for me to repeat my logically reasoned response to your analogy, again, without you producing a logically reasoned response to my analogy.

@Double_R wrote in post #76: …snip… Once you address these two simple questions, then we can move the conversation forward instead of me having to explain to you what words mean.

I logically, reasonably, and satisfactorily addressed your questions in my post #24 to you and my post #35. Since you know not that the Universe is expanding, then you have your Big Bang belief as being nothing less than a leap of faith.

https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

I don't see "THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT" as either a negative or positive feature of the CoC. Show me that I am compelled to be strictly held to the discussion of the thread title as written.

As a matter of fact, you diverted, yourself, from that thread title to discuss, in your 2nd paragraph of the #1 post, "I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian" which I don't think says squat to the big bang theory being a leap of faith, or not. It is faith which I discussed ion my #75, isn't it? So, in response to your #114, it's mirror time. Take a look.

The fact is, having read the Bible, cover-to-cover, several times in three languages, I don't see that Christ discussed the Big Bang Theory, or anything close to it. So, it seems to me, it's a discussion of open-season as far as Christ, himself, may be inclined to allow to anybody. Why should he be concerned that we discuss anything that has yet to be revealed? It's why we were given curiosity.

Yeah, thats a strawman on your part.

And? Are strawmen out-of-bounds in this forum? Show me. One man's accusation of strawman is another's steel rod, which merely says mutual understanding may be lacking.

Before the Big Bang God existed. It explains why the Big Bang was so orderly, God was directing it.

@FLRW wrote in post #79: snip…. red-shift …snip…. is a valid and tested scientific method

Your statement is a false statement as per the extensive documentation in post #53.

If you have data showing the scientific method applied to red-shift, then I challenge you to present the data here!

Are you familiar with the chemistry iodine clock reaction scientific investigation? The investigation follows the scientific method with hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, and repeatability. If you perform the investigation geographically separated in the same manner as I with both of us shining a flashlight through the starting clear liquid, then both our outputs will be blue opaque liquid blocking the passage of light after a similar latency. Even if we try to separate our individual experiments over time, say, one year, then our results remain the same. In a follow-up, we can increase the amount of hydrogen peroxide to reduce the time for the liquid to transition from clear to blue. We can conclude an inverse relationship which can be expressed by a mathematical formula. This is the scientific method!

Astronomer astrologers see red-spectral light from space, and they conjure up billions of years with vast gargantuan distances.

Your blind repetition of evolutionisms mantra “red-shift” …snip…. “is a valid and tested scientific method” is your unsubstantiated blind faith in your high priests of evolution religion’s Big Bang.

@FLRW wrote in post #79: …snip… converting red-shift into an exact distance involves complex cosmological models …snip

An example is needed, here.

When scientist William solves a flawed formula about cosmic evolution in London and scientist Valdemar solves the same flawed formula in Copenhagen arriving at the same flawed result, then confirmation occurred which is truly confirmation of an error, yet William and Valdemar believe the formula with their ensuing result are good evidence.

William and Valdemar’s work was not based fully on the scientific method of hypothesis (concept based on observation of nature), experiment (test with natural ingredients in controlled environment), observation (natural ingredients reproduce the hypothesis), conclusion (reasonable thoughts of prior steps), and repeatability (confirmation under similar circumstances).

William and Valdemar excluded hypothesis (not observed in nature), experiment (replaced by formula/model), observation (the hypothesis is calculated/speculated not reproduced).

In case you didn’t notice, I’m using formula and model interchangeably.

Red-shift is unverified and untested under the scientific method, and red-shift is merely red-spectral, so age and distance based on a nonsense nonscience red-shift is a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #80: @Kermos Ok, let’s start with this. What college degrees do you have?

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

@Sidewalker wrote in post #81: @Kermos Ephesians 2:8-10 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang. …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.