zapatos

My Biblical knowledge is getting rusty, but doesn't the Bible imply that Adam was the first human man? Who were these countless other humans who lived prior to Adam?

My face has symmetry but that does not imply anything about the size of the universe.

Is that some fundamental law of the universe? That if one extreme is not possible, then neither is the other?

Exactly how far do they reach?

Welcome newbies! Glad you've joined us. I hope we can share information and conversations that are beneficial to all.

That helps a lot. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. Is it safe to say that objects that were once in the observable universe but are now outside the observable universe due to expansion, would start out having gravitational impact on us but lose that gravitational contact sometime after they leave the observable sphere? And if so, would we lose gravitational contact at the same time we lose visible contact?

I was referring to the other part of the conversation. Airbrush asked "Would all matter in the universe already be in "gravitational contact" with all other matter in the universe, ever since the beginning?" You responded "yes". If that is the case, then doesn't that imply that we are in gravitational contact with objects outside the observable universe? And hence able to observe them via their gravitational impact?

This would seem to imply that objects beyond the observable universe may be 'observable' by their gravity. Does that sound right?

It wasn't a question about containing something that has no boundary, it was a question about your assertion that it is impossible to imagine such a thing. I can imagine lots of impossible things. What is the basis for your assertion that this particular bit of imagination is impossible?

The strange feeling I get is generated by the number of first time posters in this thread who have joined simply to add legitimacy to the other first time posters. It's amazing that this many people have a strange self-induced feeling that drew them to this site for some reason.

I assume you have some scientific basis for this assertion?

You are of course right. I just enjoy watching a non-science type ask a question about a water bottle (or whatever) and get science site kind of response. The questioner has no idea what they are getting into and the responder can't adjust their analytic mode to the probable context of the question. That may not be the case here, but that's how it looks to me.

Finally the answer MichelleAna was looking for! I would add that looking at the user comments on Amazon will lead her to a specific brand and model that will meet her needs. Asking a simple question on a science site can lead you on a wondrous journey!

Some flowers are red.

"Substantial objective evidence" means something different to the theist than it does to the scientist.

I know Trump brags a lot but I don't think is something he can do.

Does that imply Papal Cloister nuns have no faith? Or is that only how faith applies to you?

Not so much 'misunderstood' as let your bias show through. I doubt the medical profession categorizes those who believe they have benefited from god as "delusional". That is your characterization. What I actually meant to say was that "Most people who display HAVE confidence going into difficult situations, do so HAVE IT because they have reason to think they have a good chance for a favorable outcome."

Seemed kind of obvious to me. Most people who display confidence going into difficult situations do so because they have reason to think they have a good chance for a favorable outcome. Either because of their strength, skill, intelligence, faith, experience, analysis, money, or whatever. And when they are successful they typically attribute their success to those factors. But they don't usually go in thinking they are 100% guaranteed to be successful. If someone goes into a difficult situation believing they are invulnerable, it is not due to their faith (or boxing skills, or whatever), it is due to their detachment from reality. Having faith is not a detachment from reality, unless of course you can prove there is no god.

I thought you were inaccurate because your interpretation was that "his god will protect him" (in the future). While Eric said his god has kept him safe (in the past), he specifically pointed out that he has no idea if his god will protect him in the future. I think the distinction is important because going into harm's way with a feeling of god-given invulnerability speaks of delusion which I don't think Eric is displaying. He seems to be using faith more as a way to give him strength of purpose to do what he believes in, while remaining based in reality with the knowledge that any given night may turn out poorly for him.

I didn't mean to take this discussion off track, but I'm still not seeing your interpretation of his comments as quite accurate.

This entire site is dedicated to overthinking it...