Two Questions for Atheists

[hobelim]

It is what I want. I don't "worship" science, but I do respect it. I love the basic response of the scientist to a question: I don't know. Because I don't know invites everyone to experiment, and research, within the confines of the scientific method, for answers.

"God did it", on the other hand, does the opposite. That statement says, we don't need to ask any more questions, because no matter what the question that is the only answer necessary.

Hell Christians love to say it as a matter of course: Jesus is the answer. That's it. It doesn't matter the question, Jesus is the answer.

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Nostradamus or the Bible, but since you brought it up one would have to understand what scripture is referring to before they would know whether any prophecy came true or not.

For instance, if you read a prophecy about the dead coming out of their graves you could sit in the graveyard for as long as some people will wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds in the sky and it will never come true.

However if you understood that the dead coming out of their graves and tombs is a prophecy about people rejecting all that is false about irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices and embracing a new life in harmony with actual reality you would have seen it fulfilled with your own eyes for your entire life if you weren't as blind as a dingbat.

Heck, you wouldn't even know it if the resurrected dead were standing everywhere, all around you, watching.

Except there are five expectations of prophesy:

1. It must be accurate - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
2. It must be in the Bible - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfil the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental.
4. It must be improbable - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
5. It must have been unknown - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

Now, you're example falls short of the third principle for Biblical prophesy. You see, if the prophesy is not unambiguous, and requires an interpreter, then it isn't prophesy. So, either the prophesy means exactly what it said, or it isn't prophesy.

Not so fast sparkie.

In scripture the subject of the living and the dead is very unambiguous to the intelligent reader.

Choose life and live; If not you will surely die.

Just as Adam did not die a physical death in the very day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the subject of the resurrection of the dead is not about the resumption of a former physical life.

it is about entry into a new higher realm of conscious existence, one that conforms to reality, free of the fear, torment and confusion of a religiously addled mind or the mind that tries to base its conclusions on only half the facts which is like trying to build a shelter with only half the money required..

Just as the gulf that exists between you and believers is a great as the gulf that exists between the living and the dead, the transformation of the person that abandons superstition for reality , all the facts, amounts to the resurrection of the dead. A several thousand year old prophetic miracle according to every definition

Certainly improbable, neither could it have been a logical guess based on contemporary events at the time of prophecy and as unlikely as a prophecy that you or believers will ever admit that you both have missed something,.... comprehension foundational to life....

For so long as you refuse to see what has been put right in front of your eyes, the facts, you too cannot be counted among the living.....

 

[Czernobog]

Well, I addressed the "God Did It" meme back on Page 3, I think. My response to anyone claiming "God Did It" is simple... Of course God did it! HOW? That's what Science is charged with answering. The statement certainly doesn't say we don't need to ask anymore questions. It simply states what should be obvious to anyone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient spirit. It has zero explanatory value and is equivalent, in my opinion, to the Atheist Scientist statement, "Just Because!"

Here is the problem with Science, it's incomplete. There are things about the universe that Science is not equipped to explore. We know this is true with the discovery of dark energy and dark matter. We also know there are some things physics has trouble rectifying. How the universe began... what's inside a black hole... quantum entanglement... collapse of the wave function... behavior of electrons at the subatomic level. We know some things exist which are not physically observable or testable.

Science doesn't know everything but humans have always had this hubris thinking as if we've got it all figured out. Some of you clowns will point to a theory and proclaim it "proven scientific fact!" But theories are not facts.

Consider this... We are wholly unable to experience the moment of present time. It eludes us because of physics. All we have is the perception of present after the fact, in the past. Physics has to happen for us to have that perception of the present. This means that every human experience is in the past, it's already happened when we experience it. We rely totally on faith that our perception of reality matches actual reality. That's really crazy when you think about it. Only God can know the present.

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Nostradamus or the Bible, but since you brought it up one would have to understand what scripture is referring to before they would know whether any prophecy came true or not.

For instance, if you read a prophecy about the dead coming out of their graves you could sit in the graveyard for as long as some people will wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds in the sky and it will never come true.

However if you understood that the dead coming out of their graves and tombs is a prophecy about people rejecting all that is false about irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices and embracing a new life in harmony with actual reality you would have seen it fulfilled with your own eyes for your entire life if you weren't as blind as a dingbat.

Heck, you wouldn't even know it if the resurrected dead were standing everywhere, all around you, watching.

Except there are five expectations of prophesy:

1. It must be accurate - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
2. It must be in the Bible - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfil the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental.
4. It must be improbable - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
5. It must have been unknown - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

Now, you're example falls short of the third principle for Biblical prophesy. You see, if the prophesy is not unambiguous, and requires an interpreter, then it isn't prophesy. So, either the prophesy means exactly what it said, or it isn't prophesy.

Not so fast sparkie.

In scripture the subject of the living and the dead is very unambiguous to the intelligent reader.

Choose life and live; If not you will surely die.

Just as Adam did not die a physical death in the very day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the subject of the resurrection of the dead is not about the resumption of a former physical life.

it is about entry into a new higher realm of conscious existence, one that conforms to reality, free of the fear, torment and confusion of a religiously addled mind or the mind that tries to base its conclusions on only half the facts which is like trying to build a shelter with only half the money required..

Just as the gulf that exists between you and believers is a great as the gulf that exists between the living and the dead, the transformation of the person that abandons superstition for reality , all the facts, amounts to the resurrection of the dead. A several thousand year old prophetic miracle according to every definition, certainly not evident, likely, or a logical extrapolation at the time of prophecy..

For so long as you refuse to see what has been put right in front of your eyes, the facts, you too cannot be counted among the living.....

The problem with your attempt to reinterpret the Biblical origin story, there is no philosophical gymnastics necessary for that story to be accurate. "Eat of this tree, and you shall surely die," Didn't say, "You'll fall dead on the spot," Just said you. Will. Die. Correct me if I am mistaken; Adam is not still alive, is he? Which means he died. Promise kept, and no philosophical gymnastics needed.

See, you want to reinvent the Genesis story, all so that you can reinterpret every instance of the Bible speaking of death where a physical death never took place, so that you can claim the prophesy was correct, we just didn't understand it.

 

[hobelim]

How do you explain some people expressing detailed knowledge of future events as if it already happened many decades or even centuries before it actually happens?

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Nostradamus or the Bible, but since you brought it up one would have to understand what scripture is referring to before they would know whether any prophecy came true or not.

For instance, if you read a prophecy about the dead coming out of their graves you could sit in the graveyard for as long as some people will wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds in the sky and it will never come true.

However if you understood that the dead coming out of their graves and tombs is a prophecy about people rejecting all that is false about irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices and embracing a new life in harmony with actual reality you would have seen it fulfilled with your own eyes for your entire life if you weren't as blind as a dingbat.

Heck, you wouldn't even know it if the resurrected dead were standing everywhere, all around you, watching.

Except there are five expectations of prophesy:

1. It must be accurate - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
2. It must be in the Bible - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfil the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental.
4. It must be improbable - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
5. It must have been unknown - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

Now, you're example falls short of the third principle for Biblical prophesy. You see, if the prophesy is not unambiguous, and requires an interpreter, then it isn't prophesy. So, either the prophesy means exactly what it said, or it isn't prophesy.

Not so fast sparkie.

In scripture the subject of the living and the dead is very unambiguous to the intelligent reader.

Choose life and live; If not you will surely die.

Just as Adam did not die a physical death in the very day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the subject of the resurrection of the dead is not about the resumption of a former physical life.

it is about entry into a new higher realm of conscious existence, one that conforms to reality, free of the fear, torment and confusion of a religiously addled mind or the mind that tries to base its conclusions on only half the facts which is like trying to build a shelter with only half the money required..

Just as the gulf that exists between you and believers is a great as the gulf that exists between the living and the dead, the transformation of the person that abandons superstition for reality , all the facts, amounts to the resurrection of the dead. A several thousand year old prophetic miracle according to every definition, certainly not evident, likely, or a logical extrapolation at the time of prophecy..

For so long as you refuse to see what has been put right in front of your eyes, the facts, you too cannot be counted among the living.....

The problem with your attempt to reinterpret the Biblical origin story, there is no philosophical gymnastics necessary for that story to be accurate. "Eat of this tree, and you shall surely die," Didn't say, "You'll fall dead on the spot," Just said you. Will. Die. Correct me if I am mistaken; Adam is not still alive, is he? See, you want to reinvent the Genesis story, all so that you can reinterpret every instance of the Bible speaking of death where a physical death never took place, so that you can claim the prophesy was correct, we just didn't understand it.

Adam did not die a physical death in the day he ate the fruit but he did die a death of awareness when he was driven from paradise to live out the rest of his days like a naked numbskull among wild beasts of the field...

In the same way the promise of death for failure to comply with the teaching in the law is not a promise of physical death. Physical death has been a natural part of physical life for all life forms from the beginning. Don't you believe that?

Its more like this. If you fill your head with superstitious nonsense it will defile and contaminate your mind and you will lose the ability to be rational which, in scripture, is what defines a living being. Those who stand guard over the purity of their mind will never know what it is to die in this way. When was the last time you prayed to a block of wood for protection or favors and felt forsaken when nothing happened?

Jesus compared false religious beliefs and degrading practices to whitewashed tombs and unmarked graves.

Are the dead not leaving their tombs and coming out of their graves in droves all over the world or not?

 

[hobelim]

"Eat of this tree, and you shall surely die," Didn't say, "You'll fall dead on the spot," Just said you. Will. Die.

" But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2:17

 

[Czernobog]

Well, since there isn't any actual evidence of it occurring, other than Nostrodamus who was vague, and inaccurate at best, I don't really feel the need to. Yeah, yeah. I know. The Bible is full of prophesies. It's also full of contradictions, and inaccuracies.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Nostradamus or the Bible, but since you brought it up one would have to understand what scripture is referring to before they would know whether any prophecy came true or not.

For instance, if you read a prophecy about the dead coming out of their graves you could sit in the graveyard for as long as some people will wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds in the sky and it will never come true.

However if you understood that the dead coming out of their graves and tombs is a prophecy about people rejecting all that is false about irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices and embracing a new life in harmony with actual reality you would have seen it fulfilled with your own eyes for your entire life if you weren't as blind as a dingbat.

Heck, you wouldn't even know it if the resurrected dead were standing everywhere, all around you, watching.

Except there are five expectations of prophesy:

1. It must be accurate - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
2. It must be in the Bible - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfil the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental.
4. It must be improbable - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
5. It must have been unknown - A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

Now, you're example falls short of the third principle for Biblical prophesy. You see, if the prophesy is not unambiguous, and requires an interpreter, then it isn't prophesy. So, either the prophesy means exactly what it said, or it isn't prophesy.

Not so fast sparkie.

In scripture the subject of the living and the dead is very unambiguous to the intelligent reader.

Choose life and live; If not you will surely die.

Just as Adam did not die a physical death in the very day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the subject of the resurrection of the dead is not about the resumption of a former physical life.

it is about entry into a new higher realm of conscious existence, one that conforms to reality, free of the fear, torment and confusion of a religiously addled mind or the mind that tries to base its conclusions on only half the facts which is like trying to build a shelter with only half the money required..

Just as the gulf that exists between you and believers is a great as the gulf that exists between the living and the dead, the transformation of the person that abandons superstition for reality , all the facts, amounts to the resurrection of the dead. A several thousand year old prophetic miracle according to every definition, certainly not evident, likely, or a logical extrapolation at the time of prophecy..

For so long as you refuse to see what has been put right in front of your eyes, the facts, you too cannot be counted among the living.....

The problem with your attempt to reinterpret the Biblical origin story, there is no philosophical gymnastics necessary for that story to be accurate. "Eat of this tree, and you shall surely die," Didn't say, "You'll fall dead on the spot," Just said you. Will. Die. Correct me if I am mistaken; Adam is not still alive, is he? See, you want to reinvent the Genesis story, all so that you can reinterpret every instance of the Bible speaking of death where a physical death never took place, so that you can claim the prophesy was correct, we just didn't understand it.

Adam did not die a physical death in the day he ate the fruit but he did die a death of awareness when he was driven from paradise to live out the rest of his days like a naked numbskull among wild beasts of the field...

In the same way the promise of death for failure to comply with the teaching in the law is not a promise of physical death. Physical death has been a natural part of physical life for all life forms from the beginning. Don't you believe that?

Its more like this. If you fill your head with superstitious nonsense it will defile and contaminate your mind and you will lose the ability to be rational which, in scripture, is what defines a living being. Those who stand guard over the purity of their mind will never know what it is to die in this way. When was the last time you prayed to a block of wood for protection or favors and felt forsaken when nothing happened?

Jesus compared false religious beliefs and degrading practices to whitewashed tombs and unmarked graves.

Are the dead not leaving their tombs and coming out of their graves in droves all over the world or not?

And this is one of the problems with religion. Because so much of the Bible is interpretive, the entirety is subjective, and can be interpreted in 100 different way. Science? Not so much. The Law of Gravity - What goes up, must come down. Not a whole lot to interpret there. It is clear, concise, and not reliant of subjective interpretation.

 

[Boss]

Let's be clear:

We live in a world with:

1. Volcanoes
2. Earthquakes
3. Avalanches
4. Floods
5. Cyclones
6. Landslides
7. Mudslides
8. Deadly lifeforms
9. Tsunamis
10. Droughts
11. Lightning
12. Wildfires
    
13. Tornadoes
14. Hailstorms
15. Uninhabitable lands
16. Limnic eruptions

This is the planet on which we live. If there is a creator, this planet was not created for us.

I've never argued the planet was created for us, however, it was created in a physical universe and all the things you listed are the result of circumstances of a physical universe. Why did God create such an "imperfect" physical universe? Perhaps to distinguish it from heaven and to challenge our spirits? Seems to me you could also ask, why didn't God just create us all as immortal superbeings with omnipotence and omniscience?

These kind of questions amount to a rather childlike questioning of God's wisdom. As if your superior intellect is somehow greater than God's and you can rationalize how God could've done things better. But these questions have answers beyond your ability to understand. If there is no "bad" then what is "good?"

This actually touches on why I hold the beliefs I do regarding Spiritualism. We are physical beings with spiritual souls being guided by a Spiritual Force on a particular and deliberate path. I presume there is a reason for this. Think of physical nature as an obstacle course for our souls. Our spirits are being tested... trained... conditioned. For what? I don't know... perhaps what some may call an "afterlife" or some form of spiritual existence which comes next?

 

[Boss]

And this is one of the problems with religion. Because so much of the Bible is interpretive, the entirety is subjective, and can be interpreted in 100 different way. Science? Not so much. The Law of Gravity - What goes up, must come down. Not a whole lot to interpret there. It is clear, concise, and not reliant of subjective interpretation.

You're correct about the Bible being subject to endless interpretation. That's precisely why we have a bazillion denominations in Christianity alone. Same Bible, same God, thousands of interpretations. I have wondered at times if maybe God intended for the Bible to be a personal and individual message to each of us. Or if our religious beliefs themselves are "by design" and we're supposed to be that way. In other words, God intended each individual to believe as they have been guided to believe. Therefore, God's ultimate judgement would be based on how well you adhered to what you were guided to believe. It never made sense to me that someone like Gandhi was going to burn in hell for not accepting 'Jay-zus!'

The Law of Gravity

This is not as clear cut as you want to pretend. You've still not explained to us what gravity is. Here's the kicker.... you can't! You don't know because Science doesn't know. All you can do is demonstrate the phenomenon and assign it a word. You're also wrong about it not being subject to interpretation. That's exactly what Einstein did with General and Special relativity. And still, gravity remains enigmatic.

 

[Ava]

False premise.

As one of those being referenced by your divisive OP, I will speak for myself in saying you didnt turn me from atheist to agnostic.

Ive always been agnostic. And theres a documented record of it.

Same here, but I did enjoy reading the post by Boss. I didn't consider it divisive. And I respect him for giving credit where credit was due. It was a good and thoughtful post and if I considered myself an athiest, I would have responded, otherwise I would not have.

 

[Czernobog]

And this is one of the problems with religion. Because so much of the Bible is interpretive, the entirety is subjective, and can be interpreted in 100 different way. Science? Not so much. The Law of Gravity - What goes up, must come down. Not a whole lot to interpret there. It is clear, concise, and not reliant of subjective interpretation.

You're correct about the Bible being subject to endless interpretation. That's precisely why we have a bazillion denominations in Christianity alone. Same Bible, same God, thousands of interpretations. I have wondered at times if maybe God intended for the Bible to be a personal and individual message to each of us. Or if our religious beliefs themselves are "by design" and we're supposed to be that way. In other words, God intended each individual to believe as they have been guided to believe. Therefore, God's ultimate judgement would be based on how well you adhered to what you were guided to believe. It never made sense to me that someone like Gandhi was going to burn in hell for not accepting 'Jay-zus!'

The Law of Gravity

This is not as clear cut as you want to pretend. You've still not explained to us what gravity is. Here's the kicker.... you can't! You don't know because Science doesn't know. All you can do is demonstrate the phenomenon and assign it a word. You're also wrong about it not being subject to interpretation. That's exactly what Einstein did with General and Special relativity. And still, gravity remains enigmatic.

Really? This is grade school science: gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

 

[Boss]

Really? This is grade school science: gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Nope. That's what we once believed gravity was. We were wrong and General Relativity proves that. But you're not explaining what gravity is, you're explaining what gravity does. Calling it a "force" isn't explaining what it is any more than calling God a "force" explains what God is.

 

[Boss]

...gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Another bit of evidence to disprove this premise is mathematics. When scientists calculated the quantity of mass in the universe from physical matter, the amount of gravity present could not be explained. There isn't anywhere near enough matter. This is how we discovered "dark matter" and is, in fact, the only way we know it exists. So dark matter is not physical mass but it creates gravity. Dark matter along with dark energy comprise about 96% of our universe.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? This is grade school science: gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Nope. That's what we once believed gravity was. We were wrong and General Relativity proves that. But you're not explaining what gravity is, you're explaining what gravity does. Calling it a "force" isn't explaining what it is any more than calling God a "force" explains what God is.

General Relativity does no such thing. And claiming that "force" is non-descriptive is dishonest. In science there are particles, waves, and forces. Those particles, waves, and forces have definable qualities, and measurable effects. A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. It is not just some nebulous word without meaning.

 

[Czernobog]

...gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Another bit of evidence to disprove this premise is mathematics. When scientists calculated the quantity of mass in the universe from physical matter, the amount of gravity present could not be explained. There isn't anywhere near enough matter. This is how we discovered "dark matter" and is, in fact, the only way we know it exists. So dark matter is not physical mass but it creates gravity. Dark matter along with dark energy comprise about 96% of our universe.

That is not at all what scientists have determined. In fact it was the exact opposite. Even though we cannot detect dark matter directly, we know that it does have mass, as demonstrated by the fact that it affects gravitational force. You presume that because we have no way to directly observe dark matter now, that it is, magically. different fro all observable matter, and has no mass. There is absolutely no existing model that supports that hypothesis.

 

[Boss]

Really? This is grade school science: gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Nope. That's what we once believed gravity was. We were wrong and General Relativity proves that. But you're not explaining what gravity is, you're explaining what gravity does. Calling it a "force" isn't explaining what it is any more than calling God a "force" explains what God is.

General Relativity does no such thing. And claiming that "force" is non-descriptive is dishonest. In science there are particles, waves, and forces. Those particles, waves, and forces have definable qualities, and measurable effects. A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. It is not just some nebulous word without meaning.

A "force" does not explain what something is... it describes something. Did I say it's not descriptive? No, I did not. Why are we continuing to have communication problems with simple words and definitions?

General relativity certainly does refute the idea that gravity is a force caused by mass attracting another mass. It postulates gravity is a consequence of a curvature in space-time created by mass. It is still unexplained as to what exactly gravity is. There is currently speculation that it could be a special subatomic particle quantum theorists are calling a "graviton."

Now, as I said before, what you articulated IS what we once believed to be true. But up until about 2009, every physics textbook in the world was wrong... they all said the universe is mostly comprised of atoms.... that was what we believed was true. That is false! The universe is mostly (96%) comprised of dark matter and dark energy, not atoms! The point is, Science is not infallible... far from it... it is often completely wrong. And that is why it's of paramount importance to remain open minded and not draw conclusions and stubbornly cling to them as proven facts.

 

[BreezeWood]

Adam did not die a physical death in the day he ate the fruit but he did die a death of awareness when he was driven from paradise to live out the rest of his days like a naked numbskull among wild beasts of the field...

" But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2:17

but he did die a death of awareness ...


that's when they became alive by facing death - and chose to do so ... you believe to many forgeries hob - surly you will die if you do not burn that book and scatter the ashes.

 

[Boss]

That is not at all what scientists have determined. In fact it was the exact opposite. Even though we cannot detect dark matter directly, we know that it does have mass, as demonstrated by the fact that it affects gravitational force. You presume that because we have no way to directly observe dark matter now, that it is, magically. different fro all observable matter, and has no mass. There is absolutely no existing model that supports that hypothesis.

The ONLY way we know it has what we can call "mass" is because of the gravity it produces. We cannot physically interact with it to observe it. It doesn't have physical mass in the sense of physical matter and no existing model has ever proven otherwise.

Now... IF you want to call that "MAGIC" ...then that's fine! You've just proven that "MAGIC" things can certainly be REAL things that DO exist in our universe!

 

[Tuatara]

If you're NOT an Atheist (seems many of you aren't) then the question is not for you.

I don't think there are many real atheists. Even the great Christopher Hitchens (RIP Hitch), the author of the book "God is Not Great", said that he would believe if he had proof.

He did think of himself as an "anti-theist", however, in that he was very much against organized religion, regardless of whether God exists or not.
.

If you don't think Hitchens was an atheist then you have no idea what the word means.

There are plenty of resources. Go to YouTube and he'll explain the difference to you himself.
.

I have all his books and have seen most of his videos. Yes he considered himself anti-theist but he also considered himself an atheist

I've seen repeatedly point out that he has not seen evidence. You can call that whatever you'd like. I've seen him make the distinction are clearly point out that his argument is primarily against theocracy.
.

Your grammar here is way off, so much that it is hard trying to decipher what you are conveying. Atheism has nothing to do with providing evidence.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? This is grade school science: gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the centre of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Nope. That's what we once believed gravity was. We were wrong and General Relativity proves that. But you're not explaining what gravity is, you're explaining what gravity does. Calling it a "force" isn't explaining what it is any more than calling God a "force" explains what God is.

General Relativity does no such thing. And claiming that "force" is non-descriptive is dishonest. In science there are particles, waves, and forces. Those particles, waves, and forces have definable qualities, and measurable effects. A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. It is not just some nebulous word without meaning.

A "force" does not explain what something is... it describes something. Did I say it's not descriptive? No, I did not. Why are we continuing to have communication problems with simple words and definitions

And now you're just playing semantics. when we want to define something. anything, we do so by describing it using language. So, when you ask what gravity is, you are asking for it to be described. The description of gravity is the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the Earth. Now, you can say that you do not understand what is meant by force. Then the word force is described - a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object.

To say that describing something is not saying what that thing is is dishonest.

General relativity certainly does refute the idea that gravity is a force caused by mass attracting another mass. It postulates gravity is a consequence of a curvature in space-time created by mass. It is still unexplained as to what exactly gravity is. There is currently speculation that it could be a special subatomic particle quantum theorists are calling a "graviton."

General relativity doesn't change what gravity is - a force that attracts a body toward the centre of a mass. It only clarifies, with new information, how it functions.

Now, as I said before, what you articulated IS what we once believed to be true. But up until about 2009, every physics textbook in the world was wrong... they all said the universe is mostly comprised of atoms.... that was what we believed was true. That is false! The universe is mostly (96%) comprised of dark matter and dark energy, not atoms! The point is, Science is not infallible... far from it... it is often completely wrong. And that is why it's of paramount importance to remain open minded and not draw conclusions and stubbornly cling to them as proven facts.

And that is the beauty of science; as we gain new information, we altar existing models to account for the information.

 

[Czernobog]

That is not at all what scientists have determined. In fact it was the exact opposite. Even though we cannot detect dark matter directly, we know that it does have mass, as demonstrated by the fact that it affects gravitational force. You presume that because we have no way to directly observe dark matter now, that it is, magically. different fro all observable matter, and has no mass. There is absolutely no existing model that supports that hypothesis.

The ONLY way we know it has what we can call "mass" is because of the gravity it produces. We cannot physically interact with it to observe it. It doesn't have physical mass in the sense of physical matter and no existing model has ever proven otherwise.

Now... IF you want to call that "MAGIC" ...then that's fine! You've just proven that "MAGIC" things can certainly be REAL things that DO exist in our universe!

We cannot physically interact with it to observe it.

Presently. That is the word you keep not using. Science developed the atomic theory of matter long before we were able to directly detect them. No scientist actually suggests that either WIMPS, or axions have no mass. In fact, you're the first person I have heard suggest that.

 

[Boss]

And now you're just playing semantics. when we want to define something. anything, we do so by describing it using language.

I'm having to stop and play semantics because you act like you're three years old! To DESCRIBE is not to DEFINE! Two entirely different words with different meanings!

For breakfast this morning, I consumed something brown and crunchy with something sweet, sticky and fruity spread on it. I have DESCRIBED my breakfast... I have NOT DEFINED my breakfast! You have no fucking clue whether I had toast and jelly, English muffin and marmalade or a bagel and jam... or possibly any combination thereof, or possibly something entirely different that isn't DEFINED!

Now... Again... you have NOT defined gravity! You have described the effects of gravity or what you believe to be the effects... you're not even getting that part entirely correct.

The description of gravity is the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the Earth. Now, you can say that you do not understand what is meant by force. Then the word force is described - a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object.

That may be YOUR description of the effects of gravity but it is not defining what gravity is. And AGAIN.... According to Einstein, gravity is the consequence of curvature in space-time. It has nothing to do with the center (or centre(sic)) of the Earth. Gravity certainly hasn't anything to do with interaction of objects if dark matter produces gravity because dark matter doesn't interact with material objects.

Enough is enough. Stop acting like you're three years old! This shtick is getting OLD!