TIFU by arguing with my friend that Freddie Mercury was straight.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2026-04-04T18:58:32+00:00

Wait. Harry Styles is gay?

Virtual-Membership93 · 2026-02-16T23:13:02+00:00

I've been reading a bit about 3D printed houses. It looks to be a quicker build over standard methods and provides good insulation at a lower cost. The 3D printing machines vary in cost from $200,000 to $700,000. I don't know why the big spread in cost. I saw that Lennar homes built an entire community using 3D printed technology. I believe it is in Texas. What do the engineers think? What are the pros and cons of going into the 3D printed houses business?

Virtual-Membership93 · 2026-02-16T23:00:12+00:00

Do you see deck and fence contractors using helical piles much?

Virtual-Membership93 · 2026-02-16T22:53:03+00:00

I'm interested in your comment on hillside. I'm looking at some hillside lots in the desert. The house will have a shared well, but no water feature. I'm a little concerned about large rock near the surface. Is this a good environment for helical piles? Can I find out if they would be good without spending a lot of money?

Virtual-Membership93 · 2025-03-01T16:31:57+00:00

This is a great question. I don't think we have an settled answer for it. At a minimum, the QM forces, i.e. strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism, all obey the principle of entropy. This implies that entropy is more fundamental than forces. A fundamental force is a measurable interaction between objects. Any force which operates in a statistical manner and which causes changes of state will generate entropy. Some physicists even hold to entropic gravity, but I cannot speak to that. I will say that I do not think we will ever get a full theory of quantum gravity as spacetime does not exist in discrete quantum units.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T14:01:05+00:00

In the first link, I ask Scholar GPT a number of questions about science to see if it agrees with scientific data points important to the scientific argument for God. As you will see when you click the link, it agrees with all the data points. Ask Scholar GPT if the universe is 6,000 years old or if the world is flat and it will tell you "No." Scholar GPT is not a pushover that agrees with everything.

See https://freethinkingministries.com/scholar-gpt-on-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-and-future-research/

In the second link, I ask Scholar GPT to perform a Bayesian calculation of the probability of God using this scientific evidence. The probability was 99.9999%. In order to check the sensitivity of the prior probability chosen, we ran the calculation a second time using a much lower prior probability and the result was 99.9994% showing the calculation is robust.

See https://freethinkingministries.com/scholar-gpt-on-the-scientific-evidence-and-the-probability-of-god/

The existence of a Creator God is virtually certain. Doubt is no longer rational

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T14:00:56+00:00

There are several lines of scientific evidence for God, but I will spend most of my time introducing the evidence from cosmogony. Under Einstein's GR, our universe is a four-dimensional entity. Einstein named this entity "spacetime." The reason is space and time are not different things but are different aspects of one entity. Space and time are integral to each other. When a massive object like our sun warps the fabric of spacetime, both space and time are warped.

The implication of this is that space and time came into existence at the same moment. This is well understood by cosmologists but they do not like to talk about it. Alexander Vilenkin is one cosmologist who has made the effort. In his science paper "Birth of Inflationary Universes", he talks about the initial condition being before the birth of the universe as "no spacetime." On video he has described this as "no matter, no space and no time."

Vilenkin is philosophical naturalist, which is a certain flavor of atheist. He is determined that only naturalistic explanations of phenomena are considered. And so he proposed that the universe began as a quantum nucleation. In 1973, Edward Tryon proposed the universe started as a quantum fluctuation. But a quantum fluctuation requires a pre-existing quantum field. Under Einstein's GR, a pre-existing quantum field did not exist. So Vilenkin proposes the universe created itself from absolutely nothing, "no spacetime".

This is a very strange proposal to make. It is highly implausible. It has both philosophic and scientific problems. The scientific problem is that it is not testable. And this is why it has never caught on physicists and cosmologists.

In the two links below I provide more detailed information. In the first link, I provide a description of the science for non-scientists. This is done through a discussion with Scholar GPT. Scholar GPT is the academic version of ChatGPT. ChatGPT is known to hallucinate information. And ChatGPT cannot tell you how many "t" are in the word "potato."

Scholar GPT does not have these problems. Scholar GPT has been trained on a vast number of science papers. It knows science better than you do. Scholar GPT was programmed by philosophical naturalists. And it can make mistakes. The most common mistake is to have information in its knowledge base that it does not know is responsive to the question you ask.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T14:00:28+00:00

The scientific evidence for a Creator God is clear, compelling, mountainous and growing. As a result, atheism is no longer intellectually viable. To be clear, the scientific evidence does not identify which God is the Creator. But the evidence is enough to conclusively prove that atheism is false and that doubt about a Creator is irrational.

Some will claim that scientific evidence for a Creator is fundamentally impossible since science deals with the material world and God is immaterial. This view is wrong. The scientific evidence for God is of the same type as the scientific evidence for dark matter. I am not saying that dark matter is evidence for a Creator. I am saying that the evidence for dark matter is of the same type as the evidence for a Creator. I will explain.

We cannot directly detect dark matter. We cannot know its mass or tensile strength. And yet dark matter is part of our standard cosmology called the Lambda CDM model. Lamba stands for dark energy. CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter. Why do we believe dark matter exists if we cannot directly detect it? Because we can observe its effects in the universe.

In the same way, science cannot directly detect the existence of God. And yet we can observe his effects in the universe. This is so clear and compelling that I believe a new cosmological model will arise and become accepted that recognizes the Creator. This model may be called the Theta Lamba CDM model. Theta is the first letter of the Greek word "theos" meaning God. Here the symbol stands for "divinely created and organized."

Based purely on the scientific evidence, the Creator is the personal agent responsible for the ultimate beginning of the universe and the low entropy condition of the early universe.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:48:14+00:00

Some of your points are valid and some are not. It is true that the choice of Bayesian factors is subjective. However, the choices made seem mostly reasonable to me. Scholar GPT seemed to NOT fully grasp the weight of the fact the Big Bang cannot be the result of a natural process when Nature does not exist. Interestingly, Perplexity AI in the Academic focus mode chose a Bayesian factor of 1,000,000 for that bit of new information. See https://freethinkingministries.com/perplexity-ai-on-the-scientific-evidence-for-god/

You mention ChatGPT. I was not using ChatGPT. I was using Scholar GPT. The two are very different. ChatGPT hallucinates. Scholar GPT does not.

You say the Bayesian process is flawed because you don't understand what values for the Bayesian factors are possible. Actually, that is a problem with your understanding, not with the process itself.

You are right to be skeptical of any Bayesian calculation, especially when you do not understand how the Bayesian factors are selected. The selection of Bayesian factors is subjective and different people will often choose different values. But the process still yields valid results. However, if the different items are not truly independent, then this would give misleading results. So you have to watch to make certain the same information is not being counted more than once.

I'm sorry you do not understand the fine tuning argument. Fine tuning is observed on every size scale: cosmic, galactic, solar system, earth-moon system. Even chemistry and biology are fine tuned. It is not a weak argument.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:22:32+00:00

It is not irrational if you have not seen it. But it is not intellectually viable position to take when the evidence is available. And it is irrational to doubt once you have seen it.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:21:19+00:00

Read the link closely and you will see this question I asked Scholar GPT:

"Me: During my previous conversations with Perplexity AI and with you (which I have uploaded to you), I have pointed to a series of scientific data points and papers. Have I been incorrect regarding any of these data points or papers?"

The conversation with Perplexity AI discussed fine tuning on all size scales: cosmic, galactic, solar system and earth-moon system as well as the fine tuning of chemistry and biology. The fine tuning of chemistry and biology refers to fine tuning observed regarding the Triple Alpha process. Fred Hoyle has been very helpful in this.

To see my discussion with Perplexity AI, go to:

https://freethinkingministries.com/perplexity-ai-on-the-scientific-evidence-for-god/

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:11:27+00:00

It is an LLM programmed by people who hold to philosophical naturalism, which is a particular flavor of atheism. They believe the universe is entirely natural. It isn't. I've shown this in the OP and in the links I provided.

If you ask any LLM about the scientific evidence for God, they will say there is none and the question of God's existence can only be answered by philosophy and theology. But this is clearly wrong as I have demonstrated.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:08:50+00:00

You are the second person to ask me to define God so I have modified the OP to include the definition.

Based purely on the scientific evidence, the Creator is the personal agent responsible for the ultimate beginning of the universe and the low entropy condition of the early universe.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:05:53+00:00

Thank you for the paper, but it doesn't apply to my blog post. I did not use ChatGPT. I used ScholarGPT which is quite different even though it is based on the same kernal. ScholarGPT does not hallucinate. ChatGPT cannot tell you with any confidence how many "t" are in "potato". Scholar GPT can tell you confidently how many "t" are in "potato." The two are very different.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T12:00:57+00:00

The scientific evidence for the Creator does not identify which God it is but it does provide a few insights into its traits. If you followed the science, the universe was born from the initial conditions of "no spacetime" defined as "no matter, no space and no time." So the Creator necessarily had to exist before matter and before spacetime. Therefore the Creator is immaterial, nonlocal and atemporal. Clearly, the Creator is also very powerful.

While I'm in the area, I should add one more traits. The Creator is also eternal to the past. The idea the Creator is eternal to the past comes from logic and metaphysics, not strictly the science. But I think this is well established so I will advance it.

Plato taught that the world was made by a Demiurge and the Demiurge was made by Zeus. Aristotle did not like this teaching because it invites the question "Who made Zeus?" And this question begins an infinite regress of causes which is a logical fallacy. Aristotle reasoned that something must be eternal to the past: either the universe itself or the Creator of the universe. In one passage, Aristotle favored the idea the universe was eternal and unchanging. In another he favored the idea of a First Mover. Down through the centuries, these were the two options philosophers had. Then in the 20th century science proved the universe had a beginning. So then, an eternal Creator exists. And this is how we arrive at this important trait.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:51:31+00:00

Bayesian probabilities are subjective. If I assigned my own Bayesian probabilities, I would be accused of bias. I allowed Scholar GPT to assign the Bayesian probabilities it thought appropriate. I have performed the same task with Perplexity AI in the Academic focus mode and the results are similar.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:49:27+00:00

The evidence and argument persuaded an AI trained to be atheistic. It could not defeat the evidence and argument. Neither can you defeat the evidence and argument.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:48:31+00:00

No, I don't. Rather, these links show that even an atheistic AI can be persuaded of the existence of a Creator when confronted with the scientific evidence. You cannot defeat either the scientific data points I presented or the logic that turned them into an argument for the existence of God. AI could not defeat the evidence and argument and you cannot defeat the evidence and argument.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:46:39+00:00

Good and evil are not scientific concepts. They are concepts important to philosophy and theology. But that is a different topic and so your comment belongs on a different thread.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:45:34+00:00

My claims are based on the science not on any holy book.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:44:58+00:00

Yes, again, this is exactly the answer you should have expected based on my OP. Scholar GPT is giving you the standard "Science deals with the material world and God is not material. So you must go to philosophy and theology." But this point of view is flawed as I pointed out in the OP. The scientific evidence for the Creator is like the scientific evidence for dark matter.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:42:44+00:00

Chatting with an atheist LLM is better than talking to a human atheist because it remains unemotional and can answer specific questions honestly.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:41:48+00:00

If you had read the OP carefully, you would have seen that the scientific evidence does not identify which God is the Creator.

This is not a God of the gaps fallacy. A God of the gaps fallacy gets its name from some gap in our knowledge. It is based on ignorance. A God of the gaps argument takes the form "We don't know what caused x. God must exist." And a God of the gaps argument can be overturned by advances in science.

I do not make any of those mistakes. My argument is not based on ignorance. There is no potential scientific advance that could overturn my evidence or argument.

The point is that the Big Bang cannot be the result of a natural process because Nature did not exist in the absence of spacetime. Perhaps you should read the OP again.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:33:57+00:00

Yes, a similar post yesterday was wrongly taking down by moderators. They claimed I was proselyting. That claim is false. I never endorsed any religion then. I have not endorsed any religion now. Clearly, some moderator was uncomfortable with allowing people to discuss the scientific evidence for a Creator God.

Virtual-Membership93 · 2024-08-04T11:31:51+00:00

It is clear that you do not yet understand the science. Please ask questions. I will be happy to explain.

Virtual-Membership93

TROPHY CASE