i improved my previous lists.
japan warplane carries group [kuz nazi only one incomplete. in '45 self-sunk.]
dec' '41=six major not including 17 minor
akagi dec' '41? v 80 warplanes major
hiryu v major sunk like akagi
kaga v major sunk like akagi
shokaku v v, Commissioned Aug 1941,
soryu vv sunk like akagi
any added in 1942? nope until mar' '44 only 2 remained.
all six wrere involved in the battle by carrying warplanes that bombed u.s. ba'
4 sunk in '42 leaving 2 until mar"44 sho' n zui. after new u.s. sunk those 2 older.
akagi dec' '41? v 80 warplanes major but u.s. dive bombers sunk june '42 by midway
amagi no. commisiond aug' 44 major 60+.
hiryu v major sunk like akagi
kaga v major sunk like akagi
kats' after, major but Commissioned Oct' 1944
shokaku v v, Commissioned Aug 1941, Sunk 19 Jun 1944 [related to leyte battle].
soryu vv sunk like akagi
taiho late Commissioned Mar' 1944, Sunk 19 Jun 1944 by sub?
unryu late, Commissioned Aug 1944, Sunk Dec 1944
zuikaku vv Sunk Oct 1944
*not include light =30warplanes=escort, or less than 60 not major. 15+2
**fate: AKAGI, j.w.c. on june 4, 1942, by midway isle, sunk. bomb from w' dive bombers hit caused sink june 5.
HIRYU j.w.c. june 4, 1942, by midway isle, bombs from w' dive bombers hit caused sink june 5.
KAGA, j.w.c. on june 4, 1942, by midway isle, sunk. bomb from w' dive bombers hit caused sink.
SORYU j.w.c. on june 4, 1942, by midway isle, sunk. bomb from w' dive bombers hit caused sink.
then two remained sho+zui until 1944.
SHOKAKU j.w.c. on June 19, 1944, by phil' sea east from phil' isle group. u.s. subs sank 2 more w.c.: shokaku and taiho. now only 4 remained for the battle in oct'.
TAIHO j.w.c. on June 19, 1944, by phil' sea east from phil' isle group. u.s. subs sank 2 more w.c.: shokaku and taiho. now only 4 remained for the battle in oct'.
ZUIKAKO j.w.c. in oct' 25, '44, NE from luzon, [basicly north from magat isle group] w' group wasp and more sank z' and minor carriers torp+bombs.
france one minor.
the timeline of the "beginning of protons"
selected and fixed from s. weinberg "first three minutes" 1987, pp. 102-163!
introduction: assume that as we travel toward the anciently remotest past, the volume of the universe is shrinking to less than one liter and smaller….
phase one: from the earliest protons until the temperature 10^9 degrees kelvin; time frame 182 seconds.
between infinite density and status of "heat 10^11 degrees kelvin", the temperatue may have droppd from infinite heat [page 136] to 10^11 in 1% second, or from max-heat 2×10^12 k' [page 135] to 10^11 in 1/100 second. in the time equal to one second the heat will lessen to 10^10k. protons formed from thermal energy [sources below] but many phases of cooling until nucleus of p+n.
@0.01 seconds, after infinite density [v=10^-oo]. [both models coincide this time].
heat 10^11 degrees kelvin. protons CAN form from thermal energy "materialize". one model [faith believe] protons formed without any delay immediately but quark model claims a slight delay during the first 1/100 second.
density per liter volume around 4×10^9 kilogram mass. rapid expansion of volume and "rapid heat loss". in just one second the heat will lessen from 10^11 to 10^10k. protons exist but few relative to tiny photons.
radius of volume? since c=3×10^5 km/s therefore the radius of the volume of mass must be less than 3×10^3 kilometers of volume for a sphere of volume whose diameter x<6000 kilometers.
@ 0.1 seconds after infinite density, v@r<3×10^4 kilometers like c/10.
heat 3×10^10 degrees kelvin. the rate of expansion slows. ratio, 38% nutrons to 62% protons. in just one second that ratio will "shift by 14" when the more mass-ive nutrons decaying into protons while releasing radiation.
@1.1 seconds, volume: the expansion of mass such as protons must be less than speed of light. the radiation at speed of light in one second, same 299,792 k.p.s. for radius but of sphere-volume of mass: radius x<3×10^5.
heat 10^10 degrees kelvin. almost/or-exactly 1.1 seconds [from 10^11+1%s! from infinite density]. the universe will need three minutes to expand enuf to cool from 10^10 degrees kelvin to 10^9k. also thermal heat is "packaged" in mass instead of energy. @1.1s the density is 380,000 times denser than liquid water. too hot for nutrons to bond with protons… and remains too hot until 226 seconds.
ratio 24% neutrons to 76% protons… and n will change to protons despite "stable for 920 seconds" still in 13 more seconds the ratio will shift by 8. now still too hot for electrons to materialize/survive until later cooler 5.9×10^9 so around 10 seconds:
@14 seconds, radius of energy 14c. radius of mass volume <14c.
heat 3×10^9k, [now and a bit earlier 5.9×10^9] electrons with mass "can form from thermal energy" page 163. electrons were now hotter than massless nutrinos. although helium nuclei could survive this temperature it cannot evolve from hydrogyn until cooler because the nutron is not bound enuf to the proton of the hydrogyn.
ratio 17% neutrons 83% protons. why no he2? same reason the heat suffices to break the "strong" bond related to pion exchange, until heat lessens. heat continues lessening.
#phase two: from heat 10^9 until hydrogyn2 era
@182 seconds, heat [of photons] 10^9 degrees k'. three minutes of expansion and cooling lowerd the temperature to 10% of 10^10. the massless photons are hotter than the massless nutrinos [which can cause a nutron to split into a proton-electron pair, page 105].
protons still cannot bond so helium cannot evolve from hydrogyn to he3, which could survive this heat, because the heat splits hydrogyn nuclei so still no h2 until later nor he3 which would evolve to helium [he4]. despite helium could survive, still cannot evolve from hydrogyn. when heat lessons p/n will start bonding by exchanging pions [p. 102 a force that MUST be stronger than magnetic repulsion but how much more? 100 times p. 131]. no helium yet kuz cant evolve from p1 hydrogyn.
the ratio 14% neutrons to 86% protons.page 109. less neutrons means less heavy hydrogyn when the heat allows p+n bond. in 3 minutes significant cooling but the heat still prevents helium from evolving. if we end the story here no helium yet. therefore we add a fourth minute beyond his title.
@226 seconds, the deuterium helium era begins. when the heat lessens to 0.9×10^9 around 226 seconds, after infinite density, h2 [meaning 1 proton with 1 neutron called hydrogyn/deuterium] can now survive the heat and evolve into helium as follows: the steps are proton+neutron=h2, h2+p=he3,+n=ordinary helium he4, or: h2+n=h3+p=helium 2p+2n. no need for fusion simply moving near when temperature does not split the nucleous. near enough for pion exchange. helium did not need star fusion.
science verse religion:
to "twist the bible enuf" to match modern science the "first day" not only must ignore jewish tradition in tosfot and bahya, both sources specifying "not long", but must "stretch" the first day over 700,000 years until the nuclei join electrons to complete an atom… far from water molecule and far from the first "3 days" from the beginning. no atoms before year 700,000 the atomic era… based on observed temperature states and cooling rates.
only h2/deuterium and helium nuclei since 226 seconds. we can estimate ratio of elements: around 25% of nuclei are helium to 75% hydrogen either a sole proton or bonded to nutron/s. so no "water" of genesis chapter one.
sure… modern jews are happy to say a "day is a billion years" guiltlessly…. but the jewish tradition that they themselves insist "the oral law" is from god… god said the dates of the month for that week in the oral tradition which for "religious" jews overpowers the written scripture. perhas shorter 12×6=72 hours for all six days… the opposite of stretch… but rabbis rely on students not knowing those sources nor checking, to say any lie that will sway the student into the religion which leads to donations and controlling money same as any evil cult. six days seems short? it means six long era… and ALSO methusale living 900 years that just means less than 80" hahaha. the same TRAINING lecture the rabbi said "stretch this and shrink that" yet nobody but me noticed… hahaha. no nobel prize for those jews.
the faith of science
in the beginning?
science claims that the universe had a beginning. two of the respected models coincide… that the time before the heat was "10^11 power kelvin" of heat was less than one second… far less.
to simplify these complex ideas… imagine… no, instead of imagining remember when you saw a person inflating a balloon with air or helium.
the balloon material was near itself and later separated. this is the model to describe the galaxies moving apart. science faith claims that the universe spreads apart and therefore in the past was nearer denser in the way the inflated balloon surface is further than before the inflation. we caan choose a random point in time and say on your birthday the expansion was "a certain radius" and we know that after that point the inflation spread apart more than that status at that time. before that time the mass of the universe was nearer and denser… than at the defined time. [in other words: the status of the universe at a point in time at a certain time frame, after that, the balloon spreaads inflating and continues to separate. in contrast before that time and earlier, the earlier in time the nearer the galaxies and mass was in density until infinite density as explained below.
when the mass of the universe was in a small volume, in the distant past, calculated as over ten billion "years" [the time equal to one circling of our planet around sun, before it started circling] ago… at some ancient time, there was a time when the temperature can be known by calculation 10^11 degrees kelvin.
how much time would pass for the matter of the universe to cool from "infinite density" to that temperature? both of the respected models coincide: 1/100th of a second. source w' pages 135-136.
in one model they calculate the "max-heat" possible. all the mass in the universe at infinite density. the heat is not infinite due to the variety of particles. calculations show that max-heat at infinite density is 2×10^12k. . the universe cooled from infinite density and that temperature to 10^11 in… very quickly… around 1% of a second.
in contrast the quark theory… preferd despite no observed quarks [some call that particle straton] interprets protons as built from quarks. the equations "work". this model coincides with the time calculated… the time to cool from "infinite density and infinite heat" until the less hot 10^11 is known to be around 1/100 or 1% of a second. we dont know which… happened was the temperature higher than 2×10^12 like the quark model or never higher hotter than that like the max-hi model… yet both coincide about the time calculated before the temperature cooled to 10^11 degrees kelvin.
we also know the time when the first hadrons for example protons formed even before the first electron formed. a proton isolated called hydrogen not an atm due to lacking electron but a positive hydrogen ion of one proton.
the particle called proton is famously known having positive magnetic charge. and is far more stable than neutrons which survive and regenerate around four times each hour in contrast protons are stable. protons can exist at 10^13k so at max-heat, as above 20^12, there was not an earlier hotter phase. instead at infinite density protons existed during that time era corroberted 0.01 seconds. however in quark model protons did not exist until the temperature cooled to 1.089×10^13k during that era 1% second. the the temperature cooled quickly to 10^11 degrees kelvin as above.
in the faith of science i notice a "paradox."
at the moment when the temperature was 10^11k as defined above 1%s after the beginning as defined above by corroberation of models…. science has faith that electrons were present [w' p. 103] despite admitting on page 163 that is too hot for the threshold temperature of electrons… until 5.9×10^9.
on the other hand if we assume infinite time for the universe then the heat would have dissapated to zero except near stars which generate heat. we know between stars has some heat greater than zero degrees kelvin around 3 k as observed as radiation even far from stars for example above our atmosphere. the gas giants are gas state not solid despite being far from the sun.
if iwould start i would accept the time frame 10^11 for calculating infinite density but jump from 10^11 to 10^9 when electron first "materialized" as mass from thermal radiation.
in simple terms if we ask "how was matter created" science has an answer thermal radiation materialized as the universe expanded and cooled… adn during that 1%second before 10^11 k protons existed… ergo religion changes and alters it claim "fine we know how matter formed but who made the energy? must have been god" so they prove… but who can realy reach any conclusion? just kuz the book genesis is the only claim is that the one to accept? what if a group of weak magical fairies made the first thermal enery? that is also possible we did not see.
if i accept and believe the detail in science that "threshold" is 5.9×10^9 as above then at the time when the temperature was that temperature and hotter whether to max-hi 10^12×2 or hotter i cannot accept that electrons existed at that heat as claimed in the science book… so if i dont accept science anyway nor religion book genesis which is known to have "misleading details and wrong information" i can offer a better explanation… no beginning. instead of asking when was the beginning ask if a begining occurd? i doubt it did. we never saw with observation.
can an electron exist hotter than its threshold? that violates the definition of threshold. he coulda wrote that point and described as "before electrons materialized" but instead wrote a paradox that both protons and electrons existed at that time of that heat.
so if you have trouble accepting "man was shaped from dirt" in genesis chapter 1-2 you dont need toaccept that electrons existed at the time hotter than threshold.
the book corinthian echoes this old testament claim kuz christians aaccept that idea too god could… but could from nothing without dirt what actually ooccured "we" never saw by observation.
in superman 1940s, we can compare episode 12:
12 war! japan bombed u.s. warships when u.s. was nutral. superman as clark was with lois in yokohama. he starts pulling jap warships underwater and putting their bombs to bomb warships and trucks [during war in contrast to modern superman-writers who say "never cross the line of killing a human]. the japs took lois hostage and hang signs they will kill HER if he harms them… despite she innocent and no threat they will kill her. superman puld another incomplete ship to sink at sea and saw the sign. he flew to the execution and blokd the bullets. the captain with stereotype big teeth tried to murder her with a sword… the culture of uncivilized japs… so s saved her. then he flew her to safety. clark n lois return to u.s. [note: imagine the clark of smallville drafted to the vietnam war "nope i wont shoot at the vietcong that action is crossing the moral line…. i will block the bullets… while the u.s. soldiers and doctors in other battlefields around him drop in bloody piles.]
in our society any stereotype grooupin is considered bad… despite we are allowed to lie and people say lies often… stereotypes are beyind free speech because they are almost always true to th epoint even praise stereotypes are considered bad and society prevents harmless words preferring to limit speech and to justify the physical of action of violence when "incited" by stereotype speech as if that justifies action of violence and injury which logic teaches is bad videas so we must push bacjk harmless words are less importat than violent action by "incited" minoriities. so i summarize the wartime episode which would not be allowed on tv in our unjust society which needs balance
a man loyal to the japan flag saw that the u.s. made a huge bomber warplane. it is so large that it carries regular fighter planes and huge bombs. a hatch slid open so the fighter warplanes flew out. then the man who wore "stereotype" jap hat and jap style glasses, for identifying his loyalty to japan, climbed out from hiding with sabotuers, jap-otuers to take control of the plane. superman FLEW after the plane [more than leap… perhaps the first time he flew? after many large leaps] he opened the hatch and two japs ran toward him one wth a gun but before he can shoot s grabd his arm and threw the gunman far the other swung a knife but s overpowerd the human. [he also saved n untied lois] finally s went to to the cockpit where "joe-jap" was flying the plane. the crew was tied. as he broke the door jj smashed the controls so the plane would crash [rather than be used in war… and perhaps to kill himself honorably crashing into a city like the kamikaze legend which is not only a legend] superman jumped out and slowed the plane and caught it so it would not explode and lay it on the ground saving the city from the crash and the bombs that it carried.
jerusalem day 28 iyar
יום ירושלים מלחמת ששת הימים ומירון
בתאריך כח' אייר בלוח שנה ישראלי חוגגים פרט שמח איחוד ירושלים
אומנם מסביב זה יש אסון של מלחמת ששת הימים כי מאות מתו אך לעומת עם של מיליונים עד עכשיו אמרו "במסגרת מלחמה אין אבל "של ציבור" עבור 779 מתים למרות שהממוצע מעל מאה ליום בששת הימים עד עכשיו שהתברר שעבור מספר קטן יותר 45 הם יותר יקרים כי הם חרדים
החלטה כזאת לכבד 45 חרדים יותר ממאות חיילי צהל לא רק חושפת הערכים הרעים של החברה הישראלית אלא גם מבטאת את האמת הכואבת שבעיני החברה הישראלית 45 חרדים הם יותר יקרים ממאה חיילי צהל שאינם חרדים ולא "היהודים האמתיים או הצדיקים" בעיני החברה ועובדות הללו מכאיבות לי כי הדעה ההיא רחוקה מנכונה ואני מגנה בתוקף את הדעה הרעה הזאת ומה יש לי להפסיד לפרסם את הביקורת החוככת בכיוון הציבור? כבר יהרגו אותי על דברים אחרים שאמרתי בעבר.
האם ללכת לכיוון שעל 45 ראוי אבל לאומי ומעכשיו יותר אבלות על יותר חיילים מעכשיו? או הכיוון השני שעד עכשיו לא היה אבל לאומי על מספר גדול ורחוק מראוי עבור מספר קטן יותר? ולא לקבל את ההגזמה של החברה עור מספר קטן מ-779?
השורה התחתונה שראוי להיפך: על מספר גדול ממוצע מעל מאה ליום ראוי אבל לאומי עבור כול יום ממלחמת ששת ימים כולל יום ירושלים לחלק לעת רקוד ולעת ספוד אבל על מספר שקטן מ-779 לא שאין לקבוע אבלות לאומית אלא להבין שמפר קטן הוא אסון קטן יותר מאסון שעבורו לא קבעו אבל לאומי.
vaurv v,j,ubv kthzv
כול ה-"פוליטקלי קורקט" בעיתונים וברדיו לא רק מתעלם מערכי דת היהדות… שקבעו הערכים כיוון שאבלות היא עבור המשפחה של הנפטר…
אלא גם מתעלם מאמת כואבת אחרת… שבני ישיבות, לא רק חרדים אלא כלל-בני-ישיבות "מוציאם את עצמם מהכלל" בנושא שירות בצבא כי יש כמה שיקולים שאין להתעלם מהם.
כאשר אני חושב על בני שעתיד לשרת בצבא בסכנה של אויבים…. אם אגיד לו לא ללכת בגלל סכנה… כי בתמימות הוא ירצה לשרת אך אני מרגיש אכפתיות שבני בסכנה ואם אזהיר אותו מהסכנותת ישנה מערכת ש-ת-ע-נ-י-ש אותו אם לא ילך לבסיס מיון בקו"ם של צהל, בעת שאני מרגיש אכפתיות לבני שנכנס לסכנה… לא מדובר רק ברצונו לשרת כי לא חושב על הסכנה, אלא באכפתיות שלי בתור אב שלא ייכנס בני בסכנה אך באותה עת שמענישים את בני כדי שילך לגיוס… כלל-בני-ישיבות לא-רק-חרדים "בלי שיווין" לא מענישים אותם על שלא מתגייסים… נבדוק השוואה למצב הבן שלי האם… האם דם של ה-ב-ן–ש-ל-י יותר ז-ו-ל משל בני ישיבות??
איך אפשרי אחדות בעת שאת בני מענישים להכריח א-ו-ת-י לוותר על איכפתיות שלי מסכנות צבא בעת שכל-ל-ל-ל בני ישיבות מזלזלים בדם של בני
אילו א-י-ל-ו "אחדות הייתה חשובה" אז המנהיגים של בני ישיבות היו שולחים את התלמידים לשרת בצבא צהל ל-פ-נ-י הלימוד בכולל של הנשואים בתור תנאי כדי לא להוציא את עצמם מכלל ישראל… אך האמת הכואבת שמנהיגי הישיבות "נגד אחדות" ובאמת מזלזלים בדם של בני בעת שמוציאים את עצמם מכלל עם ישראל כנזכר.
logic? something is missing.
we see BARS that cover windows to prevent entrance… a theif cannot climb in and steal.
the bars also keep in the resident what about a fire escape? without bars for escape equals no protection.
the solution is the "inner bar" inside the window so it wont rust a gate with a slide then if a theif breaks the window he cant climb in kuz of a gate but the resident can unlock the gate when he wants to escape… if the lock rusts? it is inside so rain will not rust it. if lose the key? same as outer bars… not worse… trapd inside and smoke sufucates… nothing to lose but gain option if dont lose the key… but in a fire panic wont find key? still not worse than outer bars. if dont lock then the theif opens window and opens the gate too.
science claims that "photons can collide and generate matter" despite the fact that photons have zero mass not even a bit… claiming the kinetic energy of moving changes into equal mass in electrons and positrons or unstable muons that decay quickily.
so two bits of energy with zero mass collide and generate mass… and where would you ocllide them? at the hadron collider? hadrons do not include photons! they are tricking us too.
if we have "faith" that energy and matter are one then kinetic ebergy can change into matter but… does it??
we can refute science and that tricky jew einstein easily with two flashlights.
point a flashlight at all we see the "light" photons shine on the wall every point of the wall is light… if the lense is clean… my flashlight was dirty so the guy lieed "see photons are not in the entire radius… what a jerk so i cleaned the flashlight window. now ignite the second torch flashlight [steady not flashing] facing the same radius from the first, where light is hitting the wall the light collides so the photons collide…. FAST its friggin LIGHT SO at the SPEED of light that is high kinetic energy… very so many photons collide at high speed producing according to the theory mass, well in a few hours, between the two lamps, you would have a pile of dust deeper than the dust in the rest of the room… kuz dust falls.
easily revealing einstein was just a tricky jew like most tricky jews the stereotype is not a lie… he jsut allowed more theoretical calculations but his premise is wrong. so we cannot accept neither religion as in previous post nor science either they CLAIM to know the answer but all is the same mystery as before the experiment.
still if we accept that photons that have zero mass can collide and produe matter with mass then the mystery claimed by religios "who created matter" is annuld and the religius are forced to find a different mystery…indicating the technique… before we knew about photons they were pointing at a mystery not saying any proof… only the mystery. and the same as that mystery does not necesitate god neither do any OTHER mysteries.
for just a brief moment, lets assume as a mere assumption god exists then which commander? was it the god who commanded to fast from eating during ramadan or the commander too fast on day atonement? or the commander that we should kill horses but not cows as sacrifices to the gods… as demonstrated in vedas.
claiming a creator does not point to any religion. each claaims "creation proves OUR creator commander" ignoring the gap.
simple people defined god based on the mystery.
they saw the sun move… that is the appearance… so they had a mystery who pushed the sun?? that proves god… for simple people.
simple people defined god… but later… and now religious people have been forced to change their definition to "whichever" mystery. they pretend we do not notice the change…
they saw a rock… that they stood on the surface and had a mystery who made the rock? that proved for them god created… the fact that a rock does not DIE and could exist infinitely was not relevant to them.
when modern science claims "matter or mass equals energy" and claims that matter can be generated from the movement of photons… that have zero mass… that solves the mystery of matter… so they change the definition of god… whichever mystery… yet that is TOO LATE they already defined god as the "one who made matter the heavens and the earth" which can be generated by human non-gods so that annuls the proof of god and they already defined god as the creator of the matter: heavens and earth. changing only admits that they WERE wrong.
even if the fairies ALSO created light… that was not the definition.
so when they ask "who created the energy" they are only ADMITTING CONFESSING that their previous definition was wrong and they look for a new mystery which does not prove either way until the mystery gets SOLVED. religious simply point at the next mystery and the same as we found that MATTER does not necesitate god… same for any mystery. so you atheists need to point that out and free the religious people who will not read this.
as we started even if we assume just for a moment that a creator god existed still the commands differ so "which commander" was the creator. if it is the commander who commanded ramadan then no need for sacrificing horses nor blood… or the other commander. which "desire"… was the creator the one who WANTED people to fast on day atonement or month ramadan??
now that the moment passed and we "ended the time to assume a creator" we mention the possibility of a creator who did not command… anything?
if the creator was a group of magical fairies we would still see the result of a created earth and sun and stars in heaven.
if the rocks in the universe "always existed" then the "creation never happened". science claims they did not but a possibility rocks always existed.
when we ask "who moved the sun" around the earth as a proof… the religions are FORCED to change.
if the surface SPINS then we are only sometimes facing the sun and the sun never "got pushed" by god then the religious CHANGE the claim to a different mystery… "who started the spinning" that SERVES TO ADMIT and confess they were wrong. would god know if we spun or the sun orbited… who orbited who… the religious need to invent an excuse why god hid that detail and fooled them…
when a book claims god made stuff how would we test if the contents are true?
we could only test other sections of the book and if we find an error as i have found, then we can warn people to beware of the misleading wrong books called genesis and exodus and more which contain misleading "numbers and information" that we know is wrong… and a god would know was wrong if god were the author… so such books as genesis serve to prove that god was NOT the author… and when we exclude those bad books then we have no source that god existed. only humans who claim to have messages from god. but how would we test the contents of such books? if we cannot test, then their claims are baseless.
deuteronomy said a manner to test a prophet and most biblical prophets FAIL the biblical test moses faild predicting "zira" hornets yet the story tells of battles if true then no zira. a religion that wanted to cover for moses would EITHER CLAIM zira came and no battles or edit the prediction luckily they dont edit the prediction nor erase the battles so we know the bible is false and fr from god.
****the book itself undermines itself.
maybe jeremia and isaia spoke of the future accurately… but those are not the "aquina proofs" which do not point at any religion… specificly do not point at any of the claimed "commander"-s. after we cannot reach a conclusion which commander we can use the books as conflicting witnesses and reject each one. but the conflicting ones agree about the first books of moses… which as above undermine themselves… it seems he wanted one group to fast a different time than the other group…. but we can use the deuteronomy test to test them and after moses fails then quran that points to mses falls with it.
so if we believe in god it is not due to the necessity of a cause that cause may have commanded or not and which commander?
and if existed could send a message to which ever groups were "wrong" yet god acts as if he does not exist that seems to be the strongest evidence that he doesnot exist… except he did send me to tell you a message but not about the future…
god told me to tell you that he never commanded "animal offerings" nor any ceremonies, neither in the veda nor the jewish bible leviticus nor quran. all of those books claiming to be from god are specificly "out" excluded. knowing those books are false measn we need to define as a group of humans which practices are important.
if a shop needs to be organized then in the shop orginizing is important and the workers will do that 'ceremony"… however books as above are not from god… even if god was teh creator… while we cannot reach the conclusion that any "religion's" god was that creator as above and the possibility of a team of magical fairies is possible. except he told me a message that he exists and excludes all such books as above.
***THE BOTTOM LINE the bottom line:
the challenge is not toward atheism but a challenge for atheists to point out these ideas and save the slaves of religion from ceremonies.