Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. Oscillation is a back and forth motion. That is something moves one way, and then moves in the opposite direction. This means that on a single axis, you can't have 2 separate types of oscillations, as in a positive oscillation and a negative oscillation as they would be the same thing. This, as you said, is an assumption. If this assumption is false, then your proposal breaks down and does not work (as it it doesn't explain what we already have observed - namely electron/positron pair production). You are assuming, without any evidence that making a electron/positron pair must be
  2. If god could have made the universe without suffering, then no suffering is necessary as god could have achieve the same ends without it. This is the inherent contradiction between an all powerful and good god and that evil exists. This can't be explained away by magic because the dilemma has nothing to do with how it was done, only that the existence of an all powerful god that claims to be good and the fact that suffering exists. They are mutually exclusive, and because we know that suffering exists, then the conclusion is that the other can not. It is like something can't be com
  3. There are some things we can determine about an ecosystem based on an incomplete fossil record. For example: If we find a large predator, then we know there must be a prey species that it eats. Not only that, we can determine from the physiology of the predator (well what we can determine that is) how much prey it needs to survive. This then allows us to work out things like birth rates of the prey, size of the prey species, birth rates of the predator (and thus whether the predator had a predator), and so on (eg: that parasites exist, scavengers exist, etc). This is because no an
  4. I agree that you can not disprove that some god (or gods) might exist. But, it is possible to prove or disprove specific claims about a specific god, and if the existence of that god is dependent on those claims being true, then it becomes possible to disprove a god if you can disprove those claims. For example: If the claim what that a god made the thunder and lightning by banging his hammer (think Thor) and this god could only exist if this is true. Then when we investigate how thunder and lightning are produced and find that it is not created by a hammer, then we disprove that, that par
  5. There is evidence that the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. Light travels at approximately 300,000 km/s (when doing the actual calculation they used a much more accurate figure). Using various measuring techniques, they have managed to measure the distance to the furthest visible object. The distance is approximately 130,648,464,000,000,000,000,000km away. Light travelling at 300,000 km/s would take 13.8 billion years to cover that distance. What this means is that when the universe formed, the light from this time has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us, meaning that the
  6. But the point I was making is there needs to be evidence. DO you have any evidence to support your idea? There is plenty to support the counter claim though... Yes, and 13.8 billion is, well 13.8 times as much as 1 billion years... In a million years, we might not even exist to invent flying cars. There are many things we could do to wipe us out, and there are many more things the universe can do to us as well. Actually flying cars already exist (at lesat in a prototype stage anyway): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar_M400 One thing you must remember: Reality wins.
  7. The best eye I have heard of is the eye of the Mantis Shrimp. We have only 3 colour receptors in our eyes, they have 16 and can even see the differences in circularly polarised light (afaik no other animal can do this). Compared to these guys, the human eye is severely underdeveloped.
  8. Unless he can travel back through time, then he can not be telling the truth as the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. His school teachers of course... The early universe consisted mostly of Hydrogen and some Helium (and a few traces of slightly heavier elements). We are made of carbon and oxygen (mainly). These elements didn't exist in the early universe. Life is a process, and for that it needs a certain level of complexity in its chemistry, which is not possible with Hydrogen (it can only attach itself to 1 other atom) or Helium (it doesn't really have any free attachme
  9. Think of it this way. If you roll a dice and it comes up a 3, then why did it come up a 3. It could have come up a 2 or a 5 or any of 6 numbers. Basically, despite the fact that other possibilities exist, it has to land on 1 number and only 1 number. This means that your thinking above has to be wring, because if it were true, then when ever you rolled a dice it would never stop rolling, or have to land on every single number it could at the same time. This is an incorrect use of the Uncertainty principle, but it is a common misperception of it. To put it in the simplest terms: The u
  10. Edtharan

    designer drugs

    Addiction is not complete a physiological thing. People can become addicted to substances that have no physiological effect. I have even heard of people that have become addicted to eating paper. Given that, I believe it is impossible to design something (anything actually) that people consume or use that can not be in some way, to some people addictive. Thus it would be better for this discussion that a minimal addictiveness be achieves, say no more addictive than caffeine, and with minimal withdrawal (actually caffeine has pretty bad withdrawal). But, if a drug could be made that
  11. Yes, my arguments are specifically against the God of the bible. These arguments wouldn't apply to a God such as Loki or Quetzalcoatl. However, as this thread is not about those Gods, and is about the God of the bible, I have made my arguments against that one in particular. If God is subject to logic, then via logic we can disprove His existence. In fact, my arguments would remain: If God, although subject to logic, has the power to create Heaven free of suffering, then He can create our universe free of suffering. In fact, all He woudl have had to do is not create our universe at all.
  12. Even if you assume an infinite recursion, the fact remains that you can not have that infinite recursion without there being something to be recursive. Mathematically, it is the "Set" of recursions that I am interested in. It doesn't matter if it is a finite set or an infinite set, the fact still remains that the set exists. So, instead of trying to see when the recursions end up (which if it is infinite is a pointless activity), I step back and acknowledge that it doesn't matter if the set is infinite or not, but that the set exists. Yes, if you take the statement "I think, theref
  13. It could just be a translation error. In some translations "offspring" is also "heir". As the David they are talking about is a king, then someone who give up the throne to their child (sort of retired), but when that child died without a descendent, then the father would be considered the heir and could take up the throne. So, depending on how you translate it, it does seem possible. Also, for a bit of humour what about the Muppets. It seems that they can be their own Grandpa:
  14. And, as I said, that building was only to convey the fact that we understand the mathematical concept of multidimensionality. The building was not proof of multiple dimensions. If you read further I actually explained the proof. the fact is, the behaviour of a particle subject to a force is different than the behaviour of a particle travelling on a geodesic. This is the essential difference between Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity. There is a subtle, yet significant difference. Such as the orbit of Mercury. According to Newton's gravity, it should be in one place, but if space
  15. The number of dinosaurs that existed was quite high. If there were super predators that could prey on all of them and drive them to extinction, then these super predators would have left fossil records as they would have to be of a large enough population to wipe out billions of individuals. Not only that, we should see the evolutionary development of such a super predator. not only that, at the end of the dinosaurs, the continents of Earth were not one big land mass. This means the super predator would have to have been air born. The T-Rex (most likely in jest) was previously put forward
  16. I can imagine a person and that person would have experiences and could even utter "cogito ergo sum". But just saying those words do not mean that there is any inner experience that that entity has. Nor does it mean that that entity actually experiences anything. But, if that entity did experience something, and because it is a part of me, then I experience something, even if all that experience is, is the experience of something else experiencing something. I am not so much focusing on "thinking" therefore being, but that for the speaker to be able to know they are thinking, they must
  17. But you haven't explained anything. How can I learn what your theory is and address it if you don't explain it? +1 + -1 = 0 means nothing by itself. All that is saying is that if you add inverse operations together then they cancel out. As this is the definition of inverse operations, you have not actually added anything to knowledge. As an example I can generalise your "formula" by stating that Function A + - function A = 0. This says no more about the quantum world than 1 - 1 = 0, or Fish + debt of fish = no fish. you have to be more clear than that. The problem is that you are m
  18. The simple answer is that we are a social species. We are not capable of surviving alone. If you were to place a single human in the middle of nowhere (even with the knowledge of the environment around them), they would not last long. Not only that, once that person dies, there would be no more people. So, we need other people to survive and continue the species. From that is where we get the value of others.
  19. Basically, what I am saying is that because the bible states that Gods will can not be circumvented. See: Luke 18:27 King James Bible Revelation 19:6 The only way for this to be, is if God has infinite power. Think of it like this: If God is subject to logic, then God must have existed after logic. But if God was created, then He is not all powerful, nor is He eternal. Both of which are necessary for God to be the God of the bible. However, if God existed before Logic, then God created logic (and if God didn't create logic, then who did?). This means that God can transcend
  20. What you have done is to misrepresent the experiences you are having. Such as with this: "I know exactly what it is like to grow up in paris and combray in the early years of last century, to be the son of a traitorous jedi knight, or a mad danish prince but then I remember that was a book, a film, and a play" Your experiences of each of these is as the book or as the play. Your experience was sitting there watching or reading them. Then your experience was of imagining them to be real. Note, just because you think something, it does not make it real. Even if you use Solipsism redu
  21. As I keep trying to remind you, just saying something is so, does not mean it is so. Just saying that "you don't need protons, you just need shells" doesn't mean that you don't need protons. And besides, they can detect individual protons, and even know the structure of those protons. So saying they are not needed goes against the evidence that they do exist (if they exist then they exist). Now, these "shells" you talk about. You haven't actually given any evidence that this is how reality is. All you keep saying is that you say that it should be the way you say is should be. Wro
  22. With stage magicians it is called a "Plant". That is someone who will pretend to be one of the crowd so as to make the audience think they are not in on the trick. There is also a technique where a member of the audience will willingly become a plant as needed without prior set-up in what is called a "Willing Stooge". As a hobby magician, I have used this many times. The difference between me and them is that my audience knows that I am performing a trick to try and fool them. It makes what I do moral (and actually much more difficult as my audience is looking for any slip up and that audi
  23. This is the key to your whole argument. Because you say we can't know for certain what eternal power means. But, what if we could know what that means, then your argument falls away completely. The thing is, we might not know everything about infinity, but we do know enough about it to know what it means. So when one claims that God has infinite power, then we can know what that means. In fact, this is what I have been trying to explain. I have used the knowledge of infinity to describe what can and could not occur. But, all you keep saying is that we can not know. There is a sayin
  24. I think you missed my point. My point was not that an experience of an event means that the event was real (or not). But that for you to experience anything means that you can prove to yourself that you are real. Not the experience, but that because there is a you to experience something, then you must be real.
  25. How does this predict the mass of a proton? How does this predict the lines in a spectrograph? This proposition is not useful (as you have described it) at all. How does stacking apply to the 100 or so years of data about the quantum realm. Take: "But the 13th ball gap is chaos". This means absolutely nothing. You could have said that the 13 ball gap is tapioca pudding and it would mean the same. You are using chaos as a buzz word. Do you understand what chaos is? Chaos is not randomness and it is not magic. You can't just say "X is chaos" and have X work. Chaos is a very specific conc
  • 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.