Science and Religion questions

[blazerboy30]

Uh, who cares?

I wouldn't expect you to have read the thread, since you wouldn't have a chance at understanding or keeping up.

 

[blazerboy30]

Hyperbole?

If you think that's hyperbole, then you are probably correct in assessing the likely ease of our conversing. Forgive me, but your response to my response seems rude and defensively dismissive (just in case you're not aware of it).

Of course it was dismissive. I don't need to continue a conversation with somebody speaking in hyperbole instead of the topic at hand. Massive lies! Dangerous lies!

 

[magnifier661]

There's been ZERO proof (evidence). Where it's claimed god is responsible for something, there comes along a rational and Reasoned and repeatable cause instead.

Given zero evidence and all the time and things that are claimed to be his work, it's far more likely (odds) that he doesn't exist at all.

So you reject theism because there hasn't been enough proof of God's existence?


Yes or no?

 

[Denny Crane]

The atheist and its literal term is "rejection of theism". If you reject theism; then you either "believe without proof" or "have enough proof to support reasoning why you don't believe".

Since that proof doesn't exist; it's faith.

There is nothing wrong with the word "faith"; except most atheist or agnostic used it negatively against theist. The only problem is it is actually "literally speaking" exactly what drives the atheist.

Faith is the belief in something where there is no reason to believe in that something.

That's fine. You're told by some authority figure in church garb to believe and you do, on faith.

What you awkwardly claim is faith is where I look outside my house at 12 noon every day and the sun is up and it's fairly well lit. I can expect, not on faith but on previous history and empirical evidence, that if I look outside tomorrow at 12 noon, the sun will be up and it wil be fairly well lit.

 

[Denny Crane]

So you reject theism because there hasn't been enough proof of God's existence?


Yes or no?

NO proof. NO evidence.

That's why don't embrace theism.

I don't reject it. I'm not a believer, but I don't reject it.

 

[magnifier661]

NO proof. NO evidence.

That's why don't embrace theism.

I don't reject it. I'm not a believer, but I don't reject it.

Good to know. Thanks!!!

 

[magnifier661]

Faith is the belief in something where there is no reason to believe in that something.

That's fine. You're told by some authority figure in church garb to believe and you do, on faith.

What you awkwardly claim is faith is where I look outside my house at 12 noon every day and the sun is up and it's fairly well lit. I can expect, not on faith but on previous history and empirical evidence, that if I look outside tomorrow at 12 noon, the sun will be up and it wil be fairly well lit.

You are right! There is significant proof that the sun will rise! Glad you made that clear. Now give me the empirical evidence that proves God does not exist? Give me the proof that you don't require faith that god does not exist.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are right! There is significant proof that the sun will rise! Glad you made that clear. Now give me the empirical evidence that proves God does not exist? Give me the proof that you don't require faith that god does not exist.

You have it backward. There is no "sun rose" evidence that god exists. There isn't any evidence at all. I'd think even a tiny shred of evidence would make a huge number of converts.

Nobody has to prove there is no god.

I repeat.

Nobody has to prove there is no god.

 

[magnifier661]

You have it backward. There is no "sun rose" evidence that god exists. There isn't any evidence at all. I'd think even a tiny shred of evidence would make a huge number of converts.

Nobody has to prove there is no god.

I repeat.

Nobody has to prove there is no god.

Glad you admit you are agnostic. It's logical

Also glad you admit atheism is a faith.

Um news flash Denny. I don't deny believing in god requires faith. I am showing not believing in god also requires faith. Our unicorn vs no unicorn debate has begun!

Yes you don't require proof when you have faith! 100% correct sir!

 

[Denny Crane]

Glad you admit you are agnostic. It's logical

Also glad you admit atheism is a faith.

Um news flash Denny. I don't deny believing in god requires faith. I am showing not believing in god also requires faith. Our unicorn vs no unicorn debate has begun!

Yes you don't require proof when you have faith! 100% correct sir!

I've claimed to be agnostic and not atheist.

Atheism does not require faith of any kind. The sun rises thing is not faith - it's enough to convince people that the sun will rise tomorrow based upon measurable experience and empirical observation.

But it seems you get it. Belief in god is right up there with believing in unicorns, santa clause, and the easter bunny.

 

[magnifier661]

I've claimed to be agnostic and not atheist.

Atheism does not require faith of any kind. The sun rises thing is not faith - it's enough to convince people that the sun will rise tomorrow based upon measurable experience and empirical observation.

But it seems you get it. Belief in god is right up there with believing in unicorns, santa clause, and the easter bunny.

Yep I got it perfectly. And I am glad you've admitted you are agnostic. And sorry but you are twisting the term "atheist". It is lack of belief in god. If you don't believe in god without proof then you are believing by faith. As an agnostic; you don't need proof. You just don't believe because there is nothing to give you enough proof to believe otherwise.


Example: I believe the earth is over 3 billion years old. In the bible; it says otherwise. I don't have enough evidence to persuade me to think differently; so I am agnostic about this claim.

On the other hand... I believe in Christ Jesus being the son of God; but I don't have proof that He is God except my personal conviction. I say to myself "I just believe because I feel it in my soul!"

First example is agnostic, second example is faith.


Now let's take it to the no god approach...

Example: I don't believe in God because there isn't any evidence for me to believe in God. <--- agnostic

I believe that plasma isn't mass. <--- faith

Or I believe that there are humans on other planets that share the exact same DNA as us. <---- faith

 

[Denny Crane]

I believe that plasma isn't mass. <--- faith

Who said that plasma has no mass?

 

[magnifier661]

Who said that plasma has no mass?

. Not plasma has no mass. Plasma is not mass.

Plasma isn't mass. Nor was it plasma at the beginning.

 

[Denny Crane]

. Not plasma has no mass. Plasma is not mass.

I see the source of your confusion.

I originally wrote that the early universe was "LIKE A PLASMA" and you misread it to be "WAS A PLASMA"

It was like a plasma in that it was so hot that matter broke down to the point there were not even subatomic particles (and hence no mass).

 

[magnifier661]

I see the source of your confusion.

I originally wrote that the early universe was "LIKE A PLASMA" and you misread it to be "WAS A PLASMA"

It was like a plasma in that it was so hot that matter broke down to the point there were not even subatomic particles (and hence no mass).

How is "plasma isn't mass" and "like plasma" the same? Lol. Before you back peddle too much; you may want to read the posts after. Don't dig your hole any larger.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

You have people who are basically in charge of the vocabulary.

No, that's just your naive understanding of the process. Language changes, as human experiences change and the old forms no longer inform the modern. The best dictionaries try and keep up.

 

[magnifier661]

Hey Denny. You are aware that saying there is no mass, but energy is contradicting?

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey Denny. You are aware that saying there is no mass, but energy is contradicting?

I wrote in the post following the one you quoted above:

"There were no photons at the instant of the big bang, nor was there plasma."

I have no reason to backpedal. I wasn't the one using "mass" in one post and "matter" in another as if they're interchangeable. And what I wrote was fully accurate.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

It's really quite simple. ... I am fine with an atheist that says "my faith is atheism" and my reasoning is agnostic. That is all I need to hear.

Fortunately, your "needs" are mostly irrelevant to these matters.

You can't have it both ways. If you insist that all knowing has a faith component, that's fine, but you are then left with a qualitative distinction between epistemic faith and religious faith. Stanford Encyclo of Philos has a basic article on faith that may serve to broaden your grasp of the subject matter. Yes, I know, it's all black and white for you. Impressive, but seriously, you should at least be somewhat informed beyond your first person access.

 

[magnifier661]

I wrote in the post following the one you quoted above:

"There were no photons at the instant of the big bang, nor was there plasma."

I have no reason to backpedal. I wasn't the one using "mass" in one post and "matter" in another as if they're interchangeable. And what I wrote was fully accurate.

Um you said plasma isn't mass. No?

 

[magnifier661]

Fortunately, your "needs" are mostly irrelevant to these matters.

You can't have it both ways. If you insist that all knowing has a faith component, that's fine, but you are then left with a qualitative distinction between epistemic faith and religious faith. Stanford Encyclo of Philos has a basic article on faith that may serve to broaden your grasp of the subject matter. Yes, I know, it's all black and white for you. Impressive, but seriously, you should at least be somewhat informed beyond your first person access.

Black and white? Explain how everything is black and white to me? I know you are creating this label since I'm a christian.

If I'm so black and white; why do I believe the earth is over 3 billion years old? Why would I think the universe is over 13 billion years? Why do I adopt evolution?

Seems your label is ignorant at best

 

[Denny Crane]

Um you said plasma isn't mass. No?

No.

I said that what I had described as "like plasma" isn't mass.

I was repeating what you wrote, the word "plasma" in hopes you'd get it.

 

[magnifier661]

No.

I said that what I had described as "like plasma" isn't mass.

I was repeating what you wrote, the word "plasma" in hopes you'd get it.

Lmao maybe in the mind of Denny!

 

[magnifier661]

I wrote in the post following the one you quoted above:

"There were no photons at the instant of the big bang, nor was there plasma."

I have no reason to backpedal. I wasn't the one using "mass" in one post and "matter" in another as if they're interchangeable. And what I wrote was fully accurate.

Also you aren't answering this question. No mass and the presence of energy is contradicting.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lmao maybe in the mind of Denny!

You're habit of standing up strawmen and arguing against those (and not my actual arguments) doesn't do squat, except between your ears.

 

[magnifier661]

You're habit of standing up strawmen and arguing against those (and not my actual arguments) doesn't do squat, except between your ears.

There is nothing strawman on what i interpret what you wrote.

In that post; you simply said "plasma is not mass. There was no plasma in the beginning". That is two entirely different statements. The back peddle is when you later tried explaining like and shit; which never was said.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Of course it was dismissive.

Great, seems my dismissive antenna is working properly.

I don't need to continue a conversation with somebody speaking in hyperbole instead of the topic at hand. Massive lies! Dangerous lies!

This is bad faith. I put two questions to you in plain English, no Hyperbole at all. Instead of responding to them, you've attached yourself to two short phrases, the meaning of which you were presumably unable to determine. My questions though, are self contained.

But I do think you are right. You're personally not adequate for this conversation. You're free to go now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Also you aren't answering this question. No mass and the presence of energy is contradicting.

Not where the rules of physics don't apply.

Remember a singularity has 0 size and there was no time yet (at time 0).

So what was the speed of light? It could only travel 0 (inches, feet, whatever) distance because there was 0 size. What was the time? 0. What is the formula for speed?

distance = rate * time

0 = rate * 0

rate = 0/0 or something indeterminate.

Plug that into e=mc^2 (for c).

Get back to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

There is nothing strawman on what i interpret what you wrote.

In that post; you simply said "plasma is not mass. There was no plasma in the beginning". That is two entirely different statements. The back peddle is when you later tried explaining like and shit; which never was said.

I wrote LIKE A PLASMA

You kept writing PLASMA (the strawman)

 

[magnifier661]

There is nothing strawman on what i interpret what you wrote.

In that post; you simply said "plasma is not mass. There was no plasma in the beginning". That is two entirely different statements. The back peddle is when you later tried explaining like and shit; which never was said.

Let's refresh your stubborn mind....

Plasma isn't mass. Nor was it plasma at the beginning.

"Plasma isn't mass" = one statement.

"Nor was it plasma at the beginning" = another statement.

This is interpreted as "There was no plasma in the beginning and plasma isn't mass anyway"

But if you want to build some strawmen argument to recover from the ludicrous statement; then by all means, go right ahead.