Edtharan

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 common phrase used: "we don't know". Science is happy with the fact that we don't know everything. However, from believers in religion, the thing that they all seem to say is that they know everything, or at the very least, that they have some knowledge that we don't have (but seem unwilling to share it - or it is too complex for the uninitiated to understand). think back about this thread, can you see any such behaviours from people who believe in religion on this thread that fits that> That is what those red mod notes were about. It was these people writing that they had "the answer", but then when they were asked for that answer, they became illusive and tried to dodge the question. Sure, we don't know where the laws of physics came from (or if they came form anything in the first place). It is religion that tried to tell children that they have the answer to such questions, and then when people ask about those answer, they are delivered the same illusive responses and told outright that if they ask such questions they will be punished for an eternity. Where as in science, if someone asks such questions, they are told "we don't know, but how about we try and find out together". Science is honest about its knowledge and the limits of that knowledge, it doesn't make up stuff just so it doesn't have to admit that its knowledge is limited. No, it is the problem I stated earlier, that the religios (not just christians) say they have the answers, but when they are questioned about them they dodge the question, claim that we could never understand it unless we already believe that they have the answer (and thus they don't have to tell us), say something that does not match with reality, or out right lie. All of these have occurred here on the forums when religious believers are asked what their answer is. It is one of the many the reason that the rules about postings exist (particularly the ones about preaching). Then why can't atheists get the tax breaks that other religions do? The reason is that it doesn't full fill those requirements to be a religion. Just because you can make a statement, does not make that statement true. Can you show us a list of what you think something has to have to be a religion (you don't need a source for this, it is just what you think is needed for something to be a religion)? Opinion is not evidence. Con Artists manipulate people's opinions and beliefs to get what they want. So does the fact that someone believes what the con artist says, or hold an opinions created by the con artist make that belief or opinions true? No of course not. Thus, if something is an opinion or a belief, it doesn't make it true. What has been asked is evidence to support your beliefs. that is, why do you think they are true. this seems to be a common event when religious people are asked why they think their religion is true, they just relate some opinion they have about how the world could not exist without a creator (usually by quoting something from their religious text). As there is a rule on the forum that each and everyone of us accepted to use this forum that says that preaching is not allowed, then everybody must apply by those rules. it is like driving a car. Driving a car is not a right, it is something granted to you when you agree to abide by the rules of that particular country for driving a car. If you break those laws, you get punished (eg: you licence taken off you - which I suppose is like getting banned from the forum). Now, as I stated earlier, just stating something does not make it true. You have stated (accused actually) of people here Preaching and not being reprimanded for it. If you could point out exactly where this occurred, then the moderators (I am sure) will take these accusations seriously and apply the rules fairly and equally to all. Think of this like in a court. You, by stating that infractions have occurred have made accusations that have consequences. If you have evidence that the rules have been broken, and that you feel that justice must be served, then take this through the proper channels and get action taken on it. If however, this was a poor attempt as trying to ridicule people and to make justify your rejection of the evidence, then you probably wouldn't want to actually pursue it in case you are wrong and embarrass yourself. Ok, if you make that thread I will respond with my evidence. But, the question is, will you reject the evidence because it doesn't agree with you, or will you accept the evidence if it is shown to be correct. In other words, are you here for discussion and learning, or are you here to preach.

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 I changed the amount of money leaving it (ie: taking it), I am certain you would expect the amount of money in your account to change as well. This you know. This is a fact that can be demonstrated, and is demonstrated, and which you encounter on a daily basis. I don't think you will deny this fact: That if you change the rate that something leave a system, then you will change the amount of stuff in that system. Now, if you can accept that, then you must also accept global warming as this is just another demonstration of that exact phenomena. I am sure you will not object to any of these either. The amount of sunlight (and thus energy) entering Earth is relatively constant. The more energy in stored on the Earth, the more enenergy is radiated away (black body radiation) If we don't change the amount of energy leaving the Earth, then it will naturally form an equilibrium where the amount that gets radiated equals the amount entering Earth Now, once an equilibrium is established (as explained above), then changing the amount of energy entering or leaving the system will cause a destabilisation of the current equilibrium and force it towards a new one. With your bank account, this is how you increase how much you save, you reduce the amount of money leaving your bank account and thus increase the amount of money being stored in there. Greenhouse gasses are called greenhouse gasses because they have the ability to reduce the amount of energy leaving the Earth. If we put greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, then this will (because of mathematics and very well established physics) cause the amount of energy trapped on the Earth to increase. As most of this energy will be in the form of infra-red radiation (as that is what the greenhouse gasses mainly block), and infra-red light is how heat is generally radiated, then this means the Earth is going to warm. These are facts. They have been long since confirmed (and if you don't think they are facts, how about those bank account details ). They are mathematically proven. However, there is something about global warming that is not proven: And that is precisely what the consequences of trapping energy in the Earth's climate system will be. It is not "IF" there will be consequences, it is "WHAT" those consequences will be. But (and here is the really important thing), they are not saying they are right because they have a consensus, they are saying that they have a consensus because the data supports their position. See the difference. It is the deniers that claim that just because many people think that it is not happening (or at least doesn't want it to happen) then it is not real. As I have posted above, there is absolute, mathematical, conclusive proof that global warming is real and is happening. However, there is still room for debate and investigation into what the consequences will be. Talking about sunk cost; sunk cost is about when you have invested a lot of resources into a particular investment and because of that cost sunk into that investment you won't change out of the investment. To me, this sounds more like the deniers than the climate scientists. they have sunk a lot of cost into the infrastructure that they use (wells, pipelines, distribution channels, storage depots, petrol stations, vehicles, etc, etc, etc). The evidence is absolute that global warming is occurring (as I posted above, the proof is based on the mathematical fact that if you stop stuff leaving a system, then the amount of stuff will build up in the system), and yet, these people whio have these investments are denying something that is as absolute as 1+1=2, just sdo they don't have to loose their investment. To me, that is the most textbook case of a sunk cost if there ever was one.

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, if we keep dumping these gasses into our atmosphere in an unregulated way, then we will put too much in (if not already) and we will get changes to the climate because of the extra energy trapped within it. In terms of Cars. It is the difference with allowing people to drive anywhere they want, at any speed they want and have no consequences if they cause injury to someone else. What climate scientists are wanting is road rules. They want to restrict the speed at which people drive and make them drive on the road in the correct lane because these actions will cause less harm than no regulation. I don't quite understand this. Are you saying that even if people are wrong, then if there is a lot of them that are wrong, then we should just let them keep doing what they want? Or are you trying to say that climate scientist are wrong? If it is the second one, then it doesn't support your argument. In fact, it makes no sense about the argument at all. If it is the first one, then what this means is that it doesn't matter who is wrong, or how many of them are wrong; if they are wrong, then they are wrong. In that case, then it doesn't matter how many people signed that petition, if they are wrong, they are wrong. Science clearly shows that if you increase the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then there will be an increase in energy trapped within the climate systems. Whic, byt the way proves that WSJ is wrong. It doesn't matter what they put on the line for their beliefs. If they are wrong, then they are wrong. It is clear cut with no doubts, if you prevent the escape of energy form the Earth (by any means), then there will be a build up of energy in the climate systems. Not only that, this same effect can be seen in many other systems. If you have any system where there is an input of amount "X" and an output of amount "Y", then if X =Y the amount of "stuff" in the system will be stable, and, if X is less than Y, then the amount of stuff in the system will be reduced. However, if X is greater than Y, then the amount of stuff in the system will increase. This is true regardless of whether the "Stuff" is money in a bank account, fluffy teddy bears, water in a dam, or energy in the climate systems. This FACT proves them wrong, and it doesn't matter how many people are wrong; if they are wrong, they are wrong.

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.

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 set of actions we have do not include evil. However, we are then free to choose any action within our finite set. We have free will, and evil and suffering do not exist. The reason this works, is because even if we have free will, we only have a finite set of actions we can choose from. As God can choose what finite set of actions we have available, then He could choose the set of actions where evil does not occur. Well God is supposed to be all knowing, so it is certain that He would have known what was happening (and be able to intervene if He wanted to). Then we can only conclude that God was willing to let then get the knowledge of Good and Evil. But, God could have prevented this from being passed down to the next generation (and every generation thereafter) if He wanted to as well. This presents a conundrum, because if God was willing to let them make a choice about it, He is not letting any other generation that came later make a choice. So, as far as original sin is concerned, I don't think that anyone after Adam and Eve could be held account able for their actions as their descendents had no choice in the matter. Also, in the bible God states that the sons can not be held accountable for the sins of the father. Based on that, then God can not justly accuse us of the original sin (as God himself said it was unjust). Good and Evil are not substances, they are concepts. They are a short hand for labelling behaviours that are desired or undesired.

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 because they choose to, then universally, they would be considered evil. Thus, if any God chooses to cause suffering, then they are evil. It doesn't matter what their reason is, if they could choose not to cause suffering, but instead choose to cause suffering, then they are by definition evil. If the Christian God is all powerful, then they could make the universe without suffering and still achieve whatever it is they wanted to achieve, if they can't then they are not all powerful and the Christian God is supposed to be all powerful. So, the only reason that suffering is in the universe (if you believe that the Christian God created the universe that is) is because God chose to cause suffering. It is unnecessary in achieving whatever ends God wants to achieve as being all powerful, the presence or absence of suffering can not prevent that. Thus, the only reason that suffering exists, is because God wanted us to suffer for the sake of suffering. This not to to teach us lessons, not to allow forgiveness, not because we sinned, or any other reason. All the other reasons could have been circumvented by God without violating anything like free will, or the ultimate ends He wants for the universe (or any single person - or even particle of matter if you want to go that far). The only reason that an all powerful entity would create a universe with suffering in it is if that entity want us to suffer. Now, think back to the start of this post. In each of those situations, the reason they were causing suffering is because they chose to and for no other reason. But it would be universally accepted, that an entity, whether a man or a God, that chose to cause suffering when it was not necessary was considered evil. So, where does this put the Christian God?

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 actions, but the possiblity that the car might hit you that decides your actions. Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). It doesn't matter what position they hold, or how illustrious their career is, if their arguments are not logical and not based on evidence, then they are not logical arguments. Also, if their speciality is not in climate science, then they would not have the knowledge to make definitive statements about climate science. For example: Would you allow Burt Rutan to direct brain surgery on you? Probably not I am guessing. Why? Because Burt Rutan, although an amazing engineer, is not a brain surgeon and does not have the knowledge to direct brain surgery on anyone. So, even though he might be a great engineer, this does not mean he understand climate science: He does not have the knowledge. So, not onyl are non climate scientists not an authority on climate science, an argument from authority is not a rational argument anyway. This means your argument here fails on two points.

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 power to choose). However, Omnipotence and Omniscience are not compatible with Good and Loving is the universe has suffering. An omnipotent being, by definition must have the capability for evil acts, but they may choose not to commit evil acts. To deny the potential for evil acts, it is required that the omnipotent being be limited in its power, and thus it can not be omnipotent. But, if that omnipotent being can choose to act how they want, they can choose to act in only good ways. Such a being would be a Good being. However, for such a being to be considered Good, then they can not choose to do evil. This does not deny them the potential to do evil if they so choose, or deny them the ability to change their mind and choose to do evil, but that if they did evil, they would not be a perfectly good being. This is actually the core of what free will is. It is the potential for a being (omnipotent or otherwise) ability to choose to do good or evil. However, an omnipotent being must have free will or they are not omnipotent. So an omnipotent God must have the potential to act evilly, but if they choose to be a perfectly good being, then they will choose to do good. Think of it as the personality of the God. This means that it would be feasible for an Omnipotent, Omniscient God and Perfectly Good to exist. There is nothing illogical about that. However, if that God did one evil act, then that God could no longer be considered Perfectly Good. This is not a limitation of power, so it does not violate the omnipotence. It is a choice that the God would make, and that they have the power to make that choice is required if they are omnipotent. So, all one needs to do is to see if a singe evil act is performed by the God in question to be able to deny them the attribute of being Perfectly Good. But, remember, not being perfectly good does not impinge on the attribute of being omnipotent as an omnipotent being must be able to commit evil acts and could choose to do evil if they wanted to. As an omnipotent and omniscient god could create a universe without suffering but if they wanted to they could create a universe with suffering. Thus the existence, or non existence of suffering is not a necessary aspect of the universe and is entirely the choice of the omnipotent god. To inflict unnecessary suffering is an evil act, and that any suffering is unnecessary, then if the universe has suffering, then the omnipotent god has performed an evil act and can not be Perfectly Good. This means that any god that is described as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Perfectly Good in a universe that has suffering is a contradiction of itself. It is like my tag line: "This sentence is false". And, as our universe has suffering, this means that a God can not have these 3 qualities, but it would be possible for a God to exist that is not perfectly good, or that is not omnipotent (actually omniscience is not really required for my argument, so long as the god has enough knowledge to know how to make a universe without suffering - God could be incompetent but still be all powerful and perfectly good).

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 an aircraft. Thus this was not a scientific debate, but and engineering debate, and the Wright brothers were engineers (bicycle mechanics by trade), not scientists. So it was clearly not a scientific question at all, thus your argument here is invalid. Hot fusion has been demonstrated. The Sun is a direct example of hot fusion in action. Thus the scientific debate over whether or not hot fusion exists is not under debate. The question is: can we design a machine that produces more energy that it consumes using hot fusion? This is an engineering question not a scientific question. Again, you are using an example of an engineering question to prove a point about scientific questions. It is comparing apples to oranges. Your argument does not hold. Right from the start of the fusion reactor research they have known that the result of fusion is a plasma. Plasmas are an electrically charged soup of protons and electrons. It has also long been known that charged moving particles are controllable by magnetic fields (the old cathode ray tube TVs used this exact principal to control a stream of electrons to hit the screen and excite coloured phosphor pixels). This means that your statement: "It was like blind men attempting to build a cage for an animal they had never seen." is completely and utterly wrong. They had seen the "animal" they had built cages for it and knew exactly what they were doing with the design. The problem was and engineering one: The energy cost of creating the magnetic "cage" (in fusion technology they call it a "magnetic bottle") was greater than the energy they could extract from the fusion. There were techniques that they could use that they could create energy out of fusion (called a magneto-hydrodynamic generator), but they were inefficient at producing the large amount of energy needed for industrial and commercial power production (basically it cost more money to produce the power than existing methods). Again, this is an engineering problem, not a scientific one. In all of the above, the questions were not scientific. The science was demonstrated and it was because the science was demonstrated that the engineers could ask the engineering questions. In fact, it would be impossible to ask the engineering questions unless the scientific question of demonstration has already been answered. However, when it comes to Cold Fusion or Over Unity (free energy) devices, the effects have not been demonstrated. This means that you are arguing that because the engineering questions related to these examples have not been answered ( but where the scientific demonstration had previously been confirmed), that the scientific deomnstration of cold fusion and over unity devices should be taken as true despite them not being scientifically demonstrated. IF Cold Fusion could be as reliable demonstrated as Hot Fusion was at the time the engineering question of Hot fusion reactor research began, then you might have a case. However, as it stands, there is no reliable evidence that cold fusion exists. it might exists, and scientists are not against that. What they are against is claims that it exists with no reliable evidence that it does. Just because one person does an experiment that they think was cold fusion is not enough. What is needed is is other people are able to reproduce the experiment and get the same results. This has never occurred for cold fusion - ever.

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 already explainable by just 4 axis). The sudden conversion of matter to high energy photons would cause the matter the photons interacted with (collided with) to be given a massive amount of energy, typically as thermal (and thus kinetic energy), which would cause the object to "explode". So yes, the matter/antimatter annihilation does not explode, the resulting effect is an explosion and my point remains: If you are right, then the object would be torn apart in an "explosion" (or if you prefer, an uncontrolled, kinetic effect caused by high energy photons colliding and imparting their energy to the particles they interact with -aka explosion). But the point remains that if this occurred, then your hypothesis could not work.

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 15oc to 16oc colder than now. This would likely lead to a runaway freeze and eventually to a snowball Earth. So in curent concentrations, CO2 is not pathological, and thus not a pollutant, but if you increase it, the effect of CO2 in warming the Earth pushes it in a real where it becomes pathological and thus would be considered a pollutant.

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.

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 all powerful 2) God is not Good 3) God does not care about us 4) God does not exist If any of these things are true, then this means that God, as described by the bible can not exist (as the bible describes the properties of god as being all powerful, good, that he loves us - oh and that He exists). What this means is that God as described by the bible can not exist when there is a universe that has suffering in it, whatever the cause (even with free will).

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. Under relativity, this distortion is in the T axis, that is the time axis. If this is correct, then there should be specific effects that occur; namely that you should get a distortion of time as it is warped into 3d space (as warping is a rotation, if you rotate one thing towards one axis, and the axis remain perpendicular, then this means the axis you are warping into must be warped too). As a direct prediction, then we should see a time dilation as we accelerate. This has been measured. Scientists have directly measured the warping of time under acceleration. This means that the evidence agrees with theory and an "E" axis is not needed to explain the warping of 3D space under acceleration. Under gravity this warping should be in the time dimension/axis. This too has been directly measured. Again, warping in a "E" dimension is not needed to explain the observations, and there is no evidence that an "E" dimension exists according to observations. The main reason to reject it is it is not needed to explain observations and that there is no evidence that it exists. If either of these cases were true, then it would be reasonable to propose an "E" axis as being necessary. The problem with analogies: Is that they are analogies. I could make an analogy to show almost anything seem true, but this would not mean that it is true. For example, I could say that gravity is like having 1,000 invisible pixies pulling you towards the ground. But, this would not mean that gravity really is caused by invisible pixies. Analogies are useful when used by someone who understands the subject matter and is trying to explain it to someone who doesn't, but, you must not confuse the analogy to the actual model. So it might be useful to you to think of an E-axis, but this in no way means that there really is an E-axis. Or, that using an e-axis helps you to really understand what is going on.

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..

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.

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).

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 money you have in the there the higher the fees they charge. IF you have a certain level of income, then the amount of money you have in the bank is easy to calculate. All you nee to know is that as you accumulate money in your account, the fees rise, and when the fees are equal to your income, then you get no more money in the bank. This is because the amount of money coming in is matched by the amount going out. If you have more money in there, then the fees are higher than your income and the amount of money in the account is reduced. If you have less money in the account, then the fees are less than your income and the amount of money increases. It is the same with the Earth. Earth receives an "income" of energy from the sun. But the only way it can leave the Earth is by radiation out into space. this is because the only ways to move energy like that around is to conduct it away, (but the Earth is in a vacuum so this can't happen), or to radiate it away. So, when the amount of energy radiated by the Earth is equal to the amount of energy coming from the sun, then we get a balance, an equilibrium. Just like in the bank account. But, what would happen with the bank account if the bank reduced their fees? In this case, as the fees are lowered, the amount leaving your account is less, but, as the balance is between the amount coming in and the amount leaving, then this means the amount of money in your account will increase until the amount leaving again matches the amount coming in. It is the same with the Earth too. If the amount of energy leaving the Earth is reduced, then the amount of energy on the Earth is increased until the new equilibrium is reached. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses do just that. they cause the amount of energy leaving the Earth to be reduced, and this causes the amount of energy in the climate systems to increase. That is what global warming is. Because CO2 acts in this way, it is considdered a pollutent because it harms the environment's stability (or our ability to survive in it).

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 the simulation. This is true even if the "universe" we simulate has different rules that we have. This is because we are using a device dependent on our rules to run the simulation. Because of this, it means there will be "glitches" that will occur. The simulation can not be perfect. As an example, in computers that we use, they have a limited amount of ram, and the processors can only work on a certain number of bits at a time. This means with large numbers or large amounts of information, there will inevitably be errors. This might show up in our universe as a problem with mathematical operation on large numbers (or large numbers of objects). It would probably occur if you tried to repeat the same operation with large numbers twice. You would get different results. Just say you counted the number of atoms in the universe twice. You might then get two different number of atoms (even if you made sure none left or entered the region you were counting). Of course, such glitches might not require large numbers, it might be visible with smaller number, or in certain situations. So it could even be possible that such phenomena have already been seen, but just not recognised. But, more likely the glitches require much larger numbers, or that we are not in a simulation.

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 not exist.

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 just science, and the science says that people can see things that aren't real and are just the effects of the brain. Yes. Based on all data collected by researchers, this is just what they are. Very poetic, and yes, there is meaning there. This meaning does not have to come from some alien or supernatural intelligence. In fact, the core message of this seems to be that if you place something in a situation it is not ready for (or capable of surviving in) then it will be harmed (or even killed). And, actually, it is similar to many common sayings. So are you trying to tell us that an 14 billion year old alien or supernatural entity came all this way though time and space to tell us something we already know? What a waste of its time (and ours). Seriously, it couldn't tell us something of relevance, like how to marry quantum mechanics to general relativity? Or maybe how to organise a society so that it is fair, just and peaceful? So instead, we get trite sayings of dubious relevance. One could argue that: "Without great risk there comes no great rewards." (not mine, I heard it in a movie somewhere - but can't remember which one). On this advice, we should "risk" a few to learn a lot, after all, this was what drove the people out of Africa into the rest of the world, and what drove the European explorers to settle many countries, and what drove people to explore space, and what drove people to land on the moon. Without any of those risks they took, it is quite probable that you and I would not be here, and almost certain that the technology we have today that allows us to communicate in this form would not exist. So, if we were to follow the advice of this 14 billion year old alien, then we would not exist. Maybe that is their intention after all, to wipe us out with our own ignorance from lack of curiosity about the word and being bottled up like some rare species of bird in a cage. It is our curiosity and our willingness to risk to explore, our willingness to go "outside the cage", to risk being the "fish out of water", just so that we can learn something new and to push our knowledge and reach that bit further than the ones that came before us. And, if the advice that you received is true, then they want us in the "prison".

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 choose, but not that the choice has to result in a successful action, then it is fine for someone to choose to harm and then no harm eventuate and it not to violate free will. Are they? Remember, God is supposed to have infinite power and knowledge (and also good). Thus God could cause the same effect without anyone needing to suffer for it. Or, god could just design things so that the effect was no needed in the first place (ie: that the effect of the disaster is built in already without the need for it to occur). Also, God is supposed to have created Heaven where no suffering occurs, so it is possible for god to create a "universe" without suffering. But god created us in that way. He could have created us in a way that it was not necessary for hardship to build character. God has unlimited power and knowledge. He could create us so that character would develop over time, or that character was inbuilt into us (think something like an instinct). But, then that would mean gods plan was to have us suffer. remember this discussion is about whether or not god could have done things differently. In your argument, God could have done things differently, but instead chose to cause suffering. As this is the point I am making, then your argument here actually supports my position. No, you still make the choices, it is just that you have the knowledge imparted into you before you have to make the choice. But if God wants us to learn this way, then it is because He chose to force us to learn in a way that required suffering, even though there is an alternative that he could have used. This is my argument. It is possible that a god exists that does not have the three qualities I am using for my point. If these types of gods exist, my argument has no bearing on them. It is if God is all powerful, all knowing and good and valid alternatives exist that a mere mortal with limited knowledge can come up with, then if a god or gods exist then they can not have the properties of all powerful, all knowing and good. But what if you could have that same experience without having to suffer? What if there was someone with the power to prevent you from injuring yourself? God (because he has infinite power) has to power to prevent you from injuring yourself, but still allowing you to try and fail and learn from experience. So your argument doesn't hold. Actually this is a common problem when dealing with the concept of an all powerful being. People tend to think of it as just: Much more powerful. There is nothing an all powerful being could not do. This is the source of my argument. In a way I have turned the argument: "That if something could be done magically, then you can't disprove it" and applied it in reverse. If all things can be done magically and there is no limit to what can be done, then it is possible to do anything. This means that there can be no argument that relies on the all powerful being being limited in any way as to what they can do. The result of this is that if the all powerful being could do anything without limits, then it is possible for them to create a universe where no suffering is possible ant plan the being has would still occur. It means there is no counter argument to the claim that the god could make a universe without suffering. It means that any suffering is unnecessary. But because of that, it means that a god that is good would not willing create a universe with suffering. And that a god that is all knowing would know that, and know the way to create a universe without that suffering. There problem with this argument is that there is nothing self contradictory about that claim. As I said, I am not trying to refute all claims of a god, or refute religion in general. I am only arguing that certain aspects claimed to be attributes of god can be self contradictory and thus refutable. Yes and no. If this were completely true, then we could know nothing about god. It means that no god we could conceive of can not be a representation of the true god. Even the existence of such a being would be intractable to us. The result is that this would effectively disprove of every god and every religion. So, if it is possible to even speculate anything about god, then it must mean that there are some aspects of god that we can understand. We might never fully understand, but we could understand, and that if something can be proven not to be part of that god, then we can understand that it is not part of the god. My argument is that god can not be all powerful, all knowing and good at the same time. Thus at least one of those qualities can not be part of god. What I have done is just to turn that argument on its head. By using the issue of not being able to disprove magic, I have use it to make the claim that if it can be done magically (by an all powerful, all knowing and good being) then you can't disprove it. Thus by recognising that an all powerful being could make a universe without suffering can then not be disproved, it creates a discontinuity with what is observed (ie: that suffering exists). This means that one of these things can not be true (it is not consistent). As we know that reality exists, then this means that the all powerful, all, knowing and good god can not exist. As many religions require the existence of such a being, then this disproves these religions. But, if someone said that their god did not have all three of these qualities, then my argument does not apply (and I would have to look for some other set of inconsistencies).

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't just give examples where you think the assumption holds (as this is just a repetition of the assumption). What you need to do is to show how the effect that is under assumption is derived from the principals that have been confirmed. This already has an explanation that does not rely on your principals, not only that, it is one of the most tested theories ever. The accuracy and data that exist for the current explanation and the degree and accuracy of these measurements means that you claim otherwise requires a very good explanation and very good evidence that shows a flaw in current observations. Also, if acceleration is producing new matter, then this can be directly tested. There are microscopes (scanning tunnelling microscopes, atomic force microscope and x-ray crystallography) that can directly detect atoms. Thus if acceleration created matter (atoms) then these minds of devices would detect them. As the Earth is in an orbit, it is constantly "accelerating" as the sun's gravity pulls it into a different direction and slow it down in another (thus causing an orbit). However, we don't see extra matter in any experiments made with these devices. So the conclusion is not that new matter is being made, but that the mass of existing matter is increasing. This means that accounting to experiment and observation, the results that should occur (new matter being formed because of an acceleration) does not occur. This means that the hypothisis that these predictions come from must be flawed in some way.

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 the world does not occur in the main world. Now, as the "Griefer" (the player wishing to do harm) is then moved into this duplicate instance and removed from the main instance. The griefer is then allowed to perform their action and then once the action is completed, they are moved back into the main world. This way the griefer has free will to choose to cause harm, but no harm is ever visited on another player. This is a universe which allows free will but prevents people from harming others. The second flaw in that argument is that not all suffering is caused by people. There is suffering caused by natural events (think of a tsunami washing people out to sea and drowning). These events are not created by the will of people, and yet they cause suffering. This means that even in a universe with free will, and people choosing to never cause harm, then there is still harm and suffering being caused. As God has supposedly created the universe this way, then we can conclude, that without regard to the existence or non existence of free will, suffering is still being caused. All this means that the argument of free will is an invalid argument. But God being all powerful does not have to do it this way. In other words He deliberately chose to make a universe that has suffering, but had the ability to make a universe without it. Thus any suffering is unnecessary, and a God that creates a universe deliberately where people have to suffer must be evil. But he also know that it is an imperfect way for us to learn that lesson and that some people will never learn (and it could be argued that God created them not to learn that way). This means that if there is any alternative way of learning without violating free will, then this argument is invalid too. In the bible, it says that God places knowledge into the minds of people. As this does not seem to violate the "prime directive" of not interfering in free will, then this means it is ok for God to place knowledge into our minds. Here then is an alternative to the hit or miss learning the hard way, God could just impart this knowledge directly. Of course, it would be up to us to choose to follow that knowledge or not, so free will is not violated. And there is your alternative, meaning that this line of argument does not actually work. A parent is neither all powerful or all knowing (or all good, or perfect either). Thus this argument fails. If, as a parent, I could impart my knowledge directly into my child's mind wihtout them haivng to suffer to learn it. I would. Why, as someone who loved someone, would I wish them to suffer if I could avoid it in any way? As I said, this is not proof against religion or gods in general, only that it is proof against gods that have specific claims as to their properties (specifically, all powerful, all knowing and good). I am willing to admit that these argument has no impact on a god that does not claim to be good, or a god that is not all powerful or all knowing. I don't think so. The thought behind this argument is quite involved, and not all people accept logical or rational arguments. If you do not accept that logic is a valid way of thinking, and that belief is more important than reason or evidence, then this argument will not convince you of anything. If you look at the doctrine of religions, they actively discourage thinking in rational ways. If you have it drilled into you that to question God (or more specifically what an authority figure tells you about god - eg: the inquisition ), or to even think of questioning god would mean that you spend an eternity in hell, then of course you are not going to have thoughts like this. It is only because at this time I have the freedom to think, that I don't believe in any god(s) and that there have been other people who are in the same situation and I have read books on their thoughts that I could come up with this.

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.