Jump to content

Edtharan

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. However, the Bible is supposed to tell us about God. The beliefs about the bible range from: It was directly created by God, though it was inspired by God, to it was a bunch of people trying to understand God be writing stories that reflected what they though about God. However, what all of these have in common is that it is the only source that we have that is supposed to tell us about God. So, as this is the only source from which we have to know about God, then we should be able to use it to know the properties of God (if God does indeed exist). In science, there is the most c
  2. I am NOT suggesting that just insulating wall sockets would be a solution. That is a Strawman argument from you. Do not use logical fallacies if you want to be taken seriously. What I am saying is that mathematically, if we add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere so that they reduce the amount of energy leaving the Earth, then we will have to inevitably have some kind of reaction to that. It might be warming (and most probably would be, or at least include warming). This ia a mathematical fact. And I think you realise this yourself. If you were to give me your bank account details and
  3. No, that is what the climate change deniers are saying that climate scientists are saying. Climate scientists are not saying that at all. Climate scientists are saying that if you prevent energy from escaping the Earth, then that energy will build up in the Earth's climate systems. They then say, that if we want to prevent this, then we need to reduce putting the things into our atmosphere that block the energy escaping. they know that these greenhouse gasses will slowly be reabsorbed within the systems of the Earth over time, or just break down into non greenhouse gasses. But, i
  4. What I find interesting is that in that picture, the cloaky thing billowing behind God very closely resembles the shape of a section through the human brain. At the time, dissections were considered illegal, but the only way that Michelangelo could have created such an image was to participate in a dissection. As God is within the "brain", perhaps Michelangelo was subtly stating that God was the creation of the Human mind.
  5. For this to be true, then humans would have to be more powerful that God. Being all powerful, then God could create the universe where such evil could never happen, and still allow for perfect free will. Think of this in terms of Set Theory: Humans are finite, mortal beings. Thus the set of actions we can do is a finite set. God, being all powerful, can perform any action. This means that the set of action available to God is infinite. It also includes all the actions of any finite set, including all the actions we could do. Thus, God could create a universe were the finite se
  6. Here is a thought experiment: You see someone torturing someone and you ask them why they are doing that. They answer: 'Because I choose to do so". How would you then view this person: Good or Evil? I think most people would consider them evil. And now another thought experiment: You read a story about the Ancient Greek God of the Underworld (Pluto) torturing someone: You ask Him why he is doing that. He answers: "Because I choose to do so". Would you think that God is evil. Apply this to any entity. If they don't have to cause suffering to someone, but they do beca
  7. You misunderstood what swansont said. What was said was that climate scientists don't try and predict the output from the sun, but they do look at what the output of the sun actually is and use that in their climate models. Think of this: You are crossing the street. You see a car heading towards you. The driver could steer away form you and not hit you, or they might not see you and thus hit you. What do you do? Do you jump off the road, or do you just stand there? You would jump off the road wouldn't you. It is not the possiblity that the car might not hit you that decides your
  8. I actually disagree with this. Being all powerful does not mean that you have to do everything, only that you can do everything. Using this it actually becomes a trivial thing to understand how God could create a goal he could never reach: He just decides that He won't try and reach it. Thus He creates a goal He would never reach. But then He could change his mind and then achieve it (if He wanted to). Thus Omnipotence is logical so long as you allow the omnipotent being the ability to choose (and as choosing is an action, then because the being is omnipotent, it would have the pow
  9. But, powered flight was demonstrated. The Wright brothers actually flew a powered aircraft. That was the demonstration. Actually, powered flight was not the subject of theoretical physics, it was a matter of engineering. It was known that if you had a small and light enough engine, you could create powered flight (birds were a demonstration of that principal). So it had been previously demonstrated that powered flight was possible (just go look at birds flying, that is powered flight). All that was needed was the engineering know-how to create an engine small and light enough to power
  10. But, if 4 dimensions are enough to explain and account for the effects seen, and that the effects that we should see if your ideas are correct are not seen, then this rules out the need for a 5th dimension. The principal of Occam's Razor is that if two competing theories explain the observations equally, then the simplest one is the one that you use. The point I was making about the T axis, is that it does everything that your e-axis does, and not only that, there is direct evidence for it where as there is not evidence for your E-axis (or at least you haven't provided any that is not
  11. I think the best way to look at it is in the way medicine look at things. Basically, if it is detrimental, then it is pathological. So, until a substance becomes pathological to the environment, it is not really polluting. take Oxygen. In the concentrations there are now, and even a bit higher, it is not pathological to life (it once was but life adapted to the situation), but if you increased the concentration too much, it would become toxic and thus be a pollutant (ie: pathological). CO2 in reasonable concentrations is actually benificial (without it the Earth would be around 15o
  12. The mathematics of our universe would still have to conform to the mathematics of the universe where the simulation is taking place. This means that there would be maths problems that exist, but that could not exist in our simulation. This would be one of the glitches, and thus revealing that we are in a simulation.
  13. Interfering in free will is not outside the actions that God could take (there are examples all through the bible), so this is not a problem. Also, God being All powerful means that no action is beyond Him. This means that even though we could not understand how God could do it, He could, none the less, do it. Further more, God could have created the universe in such a way that suffering was impossible, then He would not have to intervene and violate free will at all. The only conclusion is that if there is suffering in the universe, then one of 4 things must be true: 1) God is not al
  14. The problem is that there is evidence of mass increase well below the energy requirement to produce new matter. Not only that, the creation of new matter in the way your ideas require would allow antimatter to interact with actual matter and this release the energy in a explosion. In other words: objects accelerated beyond the required limit to produce matter antimatter pairs would instantly blow itself to pieces. As this has not been observed in object accelerated to well beyond the limit (how else do you think they make actual antimatter), then this disproves your hypothesis. U
  15. Yes, Ozone is quite toxic. On Earth, one of the major components of smog is ozone. However, Ozone does not have to be near the ground (and cause smog). It can be high in the atmosphere and this is what blocks the UV from the sun. There are also other chemicals that could conceivably block UV light better than ozone (I don't know enough to actually be able tot ell you what they could be - if anyone here has ideas?) and if the planet was terraformed, then it would be conceivable that the terrformers could have used the other chemicals..
  16. The effects of relativity don't have a minimum cut off value. The effect has been detected at much lower accelerations than the LHC, and has been confirmed. If your idea requires that there is a minimum acceleration cut off value, then that must be included as to how and why it is there, plus evidence that there really is a cut of value (which, as it happens, would have to be contrary to current evidence). So, either the effect can be seen at all rates of acceleration (and your argument here is invalid), or you need to provide evidence and reasoning as to why it must be.
  17. What if the planet around Sirus was a super Earth with a much thinker atmosphere and a thinker Ozone layer? As Ozone is what helps protect the Earth from UV, then a thinker layer would help protect against more UV. As this planet is supposed to be terraformed, then the terraformers could have created the thicker ozone layer (and the means to maintain it too).
  18. CO2 is not normally considered a pollutant because it requires large concentrations. It is actually toxic (that is why we need to get rid of it from our bodies ). It is bad, but our bodies can cope with the conentrations it is usually exposed to. Even O2 (yes, that is Oxygen) is toxic in high enough concentrations. The problem with CO2 and Global Warming is that it reduces the amount of energy leaving the Earth. Think of it like your bank account. Say you have a bank that charges you for the amount of money you have stored in the account. It is only a fraction of it, but the more
  19. If our universe is a simulation, then it would be possible to work out if we are in a simulation or not. At least theoretically as the amount of information required could be emender (possibly requiring all the information in the observable universe - at the extreme high end of the scale). The idea goes like this: IF we are a simulation, then we exist within a greater universe with it own rules. What is important is that the rules of our universe would have to be a subset of theirs. When we make a computer simulation, we use mathematical formula in the form of algorithms to drive t
  20. If this is true, then why is there suffering in the world? If God can do anything, then He could make the universe so that suffering is impossible, and yet still achieve exactly what it is he wants. The only counter to this argument is to reject the God of the bible. You would have to either admit that there are impossible things, even for God and if that is the case, then the Christian God no longer conforms to what the bible says (ie: God is not the God of the bible - and Christianity is falsified). Or, you admit that God is evil and wants us to suffer unnecessarily. Or, does
  21. But there is another explanation: Psychology. People for many centuries have taken drugs and have seen all sorts of things. We know now how these drugs effect the brain. They have been studied very carefully, and we know that these kinds of substances can cause hallucinations. That is the people see things that are not there, they are just the imaginations. We also know that there are certain conditions that can cause similar effect. These are chemical imbalances, to genetic and neurological damage. All these things can cause people to see things that aren't there. So yes, it is ju
  22. No problem. I think it is important to explore ideas, even if you disagree with the idea you are taking in the discussion. You still have the choice to act, but it is only that your actions do not cause harm. If it is a violation of free will for someone to choose to act in such a way, but then that action does not work, then I can easily prove that we have no free will by choosing to levitate off my seat. As I have not levitated off the seat, then I conclude (using the argument you used above) that free will does not exist. However, if you accept that free will is the ability to
  23. Actually, the force of attraction between matter and antimatter does diminish with distance. It follow the inverse square law. This is because the force is electromagnetism. The difference between matter and antimatter is that matter has one electric charge and antimatter has the opposite electric charge. This is not proof of your ideas. This is just a repetition of the assumption. You can't prove an assumption by just repeating it. Just repeating an assumption does not answer the most important question about the assumption: Is the assumption correct? To answer this you can'
  24. This is a good argument. However, there are two flaws. First if it were possible to create a universe where you could choose to do evil freely, but that evil never gets visited on other people, then this argument would not be valid. As an example of this idea, I'll use a computer game (an MMO as there are other real people in that game). Now, with this game, the computer detects if you are going to harm another player, and then creates a new zone where everything is identical to just before the harm takes place. The only difference is that anything that occurs in this new "instance" of
  25. Snowflakes are a type of structure called a Diffusion Limited Aggregate. That is the particles that form them diffuse into the structure, but the current structure that exists limits where the new particles can attach. You can reproduce these in computer simulations where you have full control over what forces are exerted on the particles, and it turns out that you don't need to have any force other than Brownian motion and Adhesion. So you don't need planetary electric fields to make snowflakes. As these are not required, then it is not necessary to propose their existence.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.