doG

Is there a significant difference in the belief in a universal idea, and the belief in God?

apples and oranges....

Sorry, links I saw required an account before I could open the pdfs.... I'd gladly read sources, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to do so.

The links I provided were at wikipedia...

Gravity is a force, not energy. Please go back and start over at physics 101...

...When people extend this to illogical conclusions (like the idea that hydro plants will burn out the sun faster or that making use of tidal energy will deplete the earth's spin faster than an equal amount of resistance without storing energy... I'd have to see evidence to support that claim beyond the unsubstantiated opinion of some dude who wants me to trust him. That's not how science works. I especially don't trust those who believe that's how science works.

Wow.......just wow. You've been provided with links to learn and understand the physics behind this and you've still got a misunderstanding that has everything all mixed up.

Where has anyone made any claims that hydro plants will burn up the sun? Please quote the post so the rest of us can see where you got that from. I'll bet you can't find it yet somehow you've got it in your head that someone said that. Go ahead, reread the thread and see if you can find it. You want people to believe you're right and everyone else is wrong even though you post examples like this of your incomprehension of the physics involved.

Back to tidal energy. Imagine the situation as this. You have a large spinning ball that has an initial amount of kinetic energy that drives the its rotation. Will it spin longer if you leave it alone OR if you extract some of that energy for other uses?

Science has no explanation for what caused the big bang to happen.... Yet, the mainstream scientific community take it on faith that something they can't begin to explain (without violating physics) must have. They can't begin to explain the first steps of evolution.... Biogenisis.... Yet science takes it on faith that this impossible thing is more likely to have happened without a cause than with one. ... There are millions of dollars in grants right now cor research on bow to most effectively use "exotic material" as a fuel source cor spacecraft.... Taking on faith that some magical material exists that has certain conflicting properties.... We have no idea if it can exist or .... But based on faith, people are throwing away fortunes.

Not exactly. When you ask scientists what caused the big bang or evolution they answer 'we don't know'. Scientists freely admit there's lots of thing we don't know. Science draws no conclusion on any cause of the things we've yet to understand. What it objects to is those who want to declare a made up answer like 'god did it' when there is zero evidence to support any such conclusion. Not only do such people want to declare some unsupported made up answer as the answer they want everyone to think it is some unquestionable truth as they do. The only real truth to many of these questions is 'we don't know' and rational thinkers realize this. The irrational accept made up answers to fill in the blanks without question and they are fooling no one but themselves with their delusion.

....but belief in God is not broken, is very rational, and is very evidence based, if such belief is referring to that about the universe that is consistently true, across the board.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Ummmmmmmmm...NO! There is no evidence for god. If there were any real evidence for god there would be no debate.

Again, that is what it means to you, and to men of science. That is what it takes for you to believe it. That view of evidence is not universal. A quick conversation with theists will quickly convince you that they do not necessarily view evidence in the same way that you do.

Theists don't get to define the meaning of evidence, it's in the dictionary. Yes, theists want you to accept things like the bible as evidence even though the whole book is nothing but hearsay and wouldn't be allowed as evidence in a court of law. For them, evidence is whatever they say it is regardless if it is speculation or not. They need to find a new word because 'evidence' isn't it, it's already taken and it means something other than what they want.

Not at all. Theism is about the belief in one or more deities. It is not about knowing they exist, just about believing. That belief is based purely on faith, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Agnostics believe that mankind can never know the absolute truth about things like the supernatural. Most theists that believe in a supernatural deity are agnostic theists in that their belief in a deity is based on faith while believing at the same time that their deity is beyond the realm of knowledge. Contrast them with gnostic theists whom claim to know there is a god.

Perhaps you'll enjoy this post from the past.

Just for the record, when you say "without any evidence" you mean "without any evidence" that you will accept.

Evidence is only evidence if it is unquestionable, not speculative.

Theism is the belief that one or more deities exist, not a theory that they might exist. Theists with doubt are not-theists, i.e. atheists. Yes there are agnostic theists. As theists they belief that the existence of deities is a fact and as agnostics they also believe that man can never know the absolute truth.

As far as unicorns and the like I am unsure why you bring them up. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are real.

I see no difference in the lack of evidence for the existence of deities or unicorns and no reason to treat beliefs in them differently. Unicorns could be labeled supernatural just as some beliefs in deities but that doesn't make the belief in either any more rational.

I'll additionally point out that it is one thing to theorize that maybe the supernatural could exist and that maybe that there are deities that are supernatural but that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about the declaration as fact that deities do exist without any evidence and that is what's irrational, including any claims that their existence is a fact but we can't prove it because they're supernatural. In fact I see that as even more irrational since it's a claim that the supernatural exists without evidence. That's using one unsupported claim to support another unsupported claim.

Who did that?

 

You said people are theists only because they were taught to be theists. You left no room for an adult to conclude on his own that there is a God. Since these people don't seem to have the capability to choose for themselves and are simply burdened with what they were taught as children, I was wondering if you were similarly afflicted.Since you aren't a theist I instead asked about your ability to choose morals for yourself.

 

Since you don't seem to be similarly afflicted, I now wonder what it is that allows you to choose morals for yourself, but does not allow any theist you've ever met to choose God by himself.

 

Actually, I guess what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to suggest that theists only believe in God because they were taught that belief as children. We are all taught things as children and we later confirm, deny, or modify those beliefs.

You and your morals are an example of that.

I really don't find this belief in God to be all that different than believing that the party running this country into the ground is the Democrats. Unless of course you were raised in a Republican family. You have millions of people who think the Israelis are the problem, while millions of others think it is the Palestinians.

People help you form your beliefs when you are young. Probably the majority of people keep that general view while a minority changes completely. We are subject to confirmation bias. We mull things over, some a lot, some not so much, and come to a conclusion.

Doesn't matter if it is religion, politics, or body art.

I just don't see any reason to single out theists as being so screwed up when we all do similar things all the time. To me it seems quite natural and normal.

Now you're trying to equate opinions with beliefs. There is no doubt that democrats, republicans, Israelis and Palestinians exist. We know they are real. Our opinions on their ideologies vary but that has no bearing on their existence.

OTOH, there is zero evidence to support as fact the existence of deities, leprechuans, unicorns, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. It is understandable that misled children believe in these things but adults should know better and their ability to think rationally should be questioned if they believe any of these things are real.

I don't see how asking a person about their position could possibly be construed as a strawman.

When someone tries to substitute a belief in morals that is taught to bolster support for the belief in mystical beings I see it as an evasive attempt to steer the debate elsewhere in order to claim that the belief in mystical beings is valid because a belief in morals is. There is no comparison whatsoever in telling kids that stealing is wrong and telling them that gods or Santa Claus is real.

It seems rather bold to suggest that you were capable of coming to a conclusion on your own (atheism) but that they were not capable of coming to a conclusion on their own (theism). That you believe what you believe because of maturity and logic, but they only believe what they do because they were taught it as children. Not to sound rude, but why are you special? Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?

Some are taught to be skeptics, to question everything, others are not. Not only are many children told they need to believe in God, they are also told that they are not to question that belief. They are taught that the existence of God is a fact even though there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion.

I assume you were taught that stealing is wrong. Is it safe to assume then that you only believe stealing is wrong because someone else told you that was so?

Strawman!!!

Anyone that learns what it is like to be stolen from can easily learn from experience how it is to those they would steal from.

Lets take the strawman out of it and compare apples with apples. Should all of the children of the world that are taught that Santa Claus is real continue believing that for life without question just because the were told Santa Claus is real? If you don't want to use Santa feel free to substitute the tooth fairy, leprechuans, unicorns or any other mythical being children are misled about.

Of course not. Point is, that force is being put out there. What happens to the force after it's generated doesn't change what generated that force.

 

The tides are being pulled over a turbine used to charge a battery, which causes a bit of drag in the water. How does that water lose more energy if the circuit is complete and the battery is charging as opposed to if the circuit to the battery is broken... the turbine causes identical drag... but the energy isn't being utilized to store electricity?

 

The force is being applied, whether it's utilized or not. Whether water is tumbling over a rock and applying a certain amount of drag... or tumbling over a turbine and having that same amount of drag generate electricity... the water has no way to detect that effect... it just experiences some drag.

 

That's why this statement is illogical:

No, your response further demonstrates your lack of understanding.

The Earth has a certain amount of kinetic energy stored in it's mass long ago that causes it to rotate just like a spinning top. It will continue spinning for the longest time as long as you don't introduce any additional friction, just like the top. If you do introduce additional friction of any kind you will reduce the total amount of time the it would spin naturally. Adding drag to the water currents caused by the tides is adding friction to the process and will result in slowing down the Earth's rotation in the long term. It may not be on a scale that you would notice in a lifetime but it will effect the long term environment of humanity as it increases the length of a day and night.

FWIW, I'm not going to spend any more time trying to explain this to some arrogant know-it-all that wants to declare their knowledge as superior to the physicists writing books on orbital mechanics.

And the suns energy helps along the water cycle. When we use hydroelectricity, are we depeting the sun faster than if we hadn't generated that electricity?

 

The work of moving the water is done whether we utilize it or not.

No, using radiated energy from the sun does not accelerate the sun's processes. Do you really want the rest of us to think you believe such a thing?

They have a bite that hurts but is not medically significant. I took a bite from an usumbara once and it felt like getting stung by 10 wasps at once in the same place. Aside from the horrendous pain I suffered no other effects except some leg cramps.

In response to the legendary pokemon:

 

1- I believe that the work the moon is doing on the tides may cause tidal locking... I don't believe us utilizing the tides more will have any effect on that. And I don't believe that tidal locking of the moon will have any effect on the moon's ability to pull the tide's. That's rotation, not orbit. A rock facing one direction has the same gravity as the same rock facing the other direction. Now, swan suggested that tidal locking is also the cause for the moon's orbit receding. Thus the work of gravity has an antigravitational effect. I believe the moon may be receding... but I don't believe the moon pulling the tides causes the moon to be pushed away from those tides.

Thank you for stating clearly that you don't understand orbital mechanics and that you think you understand them better than the people that have studied orbital mechanics.Do us a favor and pick up a book.

The Earth's tides are caused by the moon's gravity but the energy that drives them comes from the Earth's kinetic rotational energy. As the Earth spins under the moons gravity it cause the tides to go up and down dissipating that energy and slowing down the Earth's rotation. Tapping that energy will accelerate that process. It's like an electrical generator with no load connected. Give it a spin and it coasts for a while but connect a load and it will come to a halt quickly if you don't put in the energy you're taking out.

Trust me, you still don't want to pick it up....

Like this?

The current conversation regards tidal energy. Not too widely utilized, but no way to get around the work the moon does pulling the oceans around. I don't give a hoot about the moon's rotational speed, so long as it's gravitational field effects us to pull water around for us to use. They respond that this process is the cause of the moon losing energy and thus receding. I buy that there is torque on the moon that could put its rotation in synch with us.... Maybe even reverse it, perhaps. I even buy that it could be receding... But to use this to insinuate that gravity holds to the concept that energy can't be created and that all of the work the moon's gravity has done since the moon has been around.... Is somehow a finite amount that will eventually run out.... That's just silly.

It is a finite amount that will eventually run out when full tidal locking occurs and utilizing energy from the process in the meantime will only speed up that process.

Like I said, assuming this is correct... What leads us to believe the only probable explanation is that the moon's gravitational effect is making it run out of gravity?

It has nothing to do with running out of gravity. The moon's mass is constant and so is it's mass. Over time tidal forces between rotating bodies dissipate their rotational kinetic energy eventually leading to tidal locking. As this occurs the smaller of the two bodies recedes from the larger. Maybe you should try reading some physics....

 

How did you come to know what 'they' believe?

And how did you come to know that they believe it only because someone else told them so?

I see no reason to believe they were born believing in any god and everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught. Most of them were also taught that the bible itself is factual evidence of god. It's part of growing up in the southern baptist bible belt, propagation of faith over rationality

Huntsman....not dangerous.

A belief in god is always something I would try to persuade someone against, but I wouldn't call them broken for it.

But they are. They believe something only because someone else told them so. Something there is no evidence for. Something on faith with no skepticism. Their rationality is fractured.

But an entire island just plain being mean by dragging it's verbal nails across the chalkboard of my mind is just plain.... that's just plain wrong.

I take it that you expect England's english to follow the evolution of American english even though it was the first that was the origin of the latter? How arrogant....

I've heard the theory that the moon's receding before. Possible... but do you believe it's more likely a matter of trajectory, or do you honestly believe that the effect of the gravity between the earth and moon is actually causing both to recede from each other? (Or do you actually suggest that a loss of energy is restricted to the moon? It's gravitational effect on our planet is causing it to lose energy, while our own planet does not?)

It's called tidal acceleration...

Law of energy conservation states that energy can neither be destroyed nor created, only that it can only be transformed.

Actually:

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form; for instance, chemical energy can beconverted to kinetic energy.

An object in orbit will never stop falling because gravity will never run out (unless thé system is altered by an outside force, or imbalanced by the sun deteriorating or whatnot).

Ummmmmmmm......NO!

As an example:

 

 

The Moon is gradually receding from the Earth into a higher orbit, and calculations^[9][10] suggest that this would continue for about fifty billion years.

Let me make the difference between basing a conclusion in science on scientific evidence and making a conclusion of belief philosophically.

 

Based on all the scientific theories we have, the "fine-tuned" universe and design of the Universe, I make my own conclusion that there is an intelligent being behind it. This type of thinking makes sense to me, unless you consider it irrational.

Yes, it's irrational. To theorize that there could be intelligence behind it would be scientific, to conclude there is intelligence behind it is unscientific. There is no evidence to conclude that deities are a fact.