zapatos

If the sun turned into a black hole as you said in your original post, then the mass would remain the same. If it the same mass, it is the same gravitational pull. That is why there would be no impact on the earth. Yes, he was right.

At earth's current distance the earth will continue to orbit. Doesn't matter if the sun turns into a black hole or if the diameter increased 10 fold. The gravitational pull on earth will remain the same.

Light that is within the event horizon of the black hole cannot escape. The event horizon would be near what is now the center of the sun. The extreme gravity of a black hole is not experienced until you are very near it.

Wow! Outstanding in every way. Thanks for posting!

If you are going to silence half the word for censorship, wouldn't it make more sense to silence the word 'ass' and say the word 'hole'?

The word 'asshole' is often censored on television by silencing half the word. I find it funny that they let the word 'ass' be said but silence the word 'hole'.

They would spin off one at a time, starting with Mercury and working their way out. Given their orbital velocities, once they were no longer constrained by the gravity of the sun they would leave the solar system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction If gravity does indeed travel at the speed of light as expected, it is interesting to think that if the sun were to suddenly disappear, the earth would continue to orbit around the point where the sun had been for for an additional eight minutes, and the planets would fly off into space one at a time.

That is probably my most common dream in the category of 'dreams I don't like'. It occurs slightly more often than scary snakes, and me realizing I'm about to be caught cheating with some beautiful model. (I'm sure if I asked my wife if it was okay with her if I had sex with a beautiful model, given the opportunity, she would manage to stop laughing long enough to say yes.)

No, it doesn't lead to one logical conclusion. It leads to one possible logical conclusion. Can you please point out how I just did that? From my perspective I am simply not accepting your reasoning. Can you please point out where I just did that? Wow. And you complain about me being non-scientific? Well, case closed. I guess we can shut down this topic. On a side note, if you are changing font size for parts of your post, can you please stop doing so? It makes it difficult to respond without formatting errors. Thanks.

Sorry, I've read your post a couple of times and I am still missing it. How does knowing that the chances of remaining a theist into adulthood are very high, tell you 'why' they are remaining a theist?

I would have to disagree. And the reason is that your question is a bit of a straw man. doG said "...everyone I've ever met that was a theist believed so because that's what they were taught." Since Moontanman was able to draw his own conclusion, I think the question "Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?" was quite appropriate. My question address the statement that "...a theist believed so because that's what they were taught." I am asking about the reason. Your question does not address the reason people remain theists after adulthood, only whether or not they do. I am questioning why doG and Moon felt they were capable to making their own decisions, but that theists were not. You are questioning if people ever change their religion, which was never in question. Ah, now I know why you might think yourself to be special. It is because you don't belong to that majority of the world's population that is "irrational and "superstitious".

Yep. I guess we fed him so much that he lost track of what he said.

Wait. What?

Yes, it came from God himself.

Just to be fair... Being an animal is not a 'fact', unless you are saying that it is a 'fact' that certain humans created a category and put themselves in it in an attempt to bring order to their understanding of the world. Why can't other humans have a different opinion on how to categorize life?

I think that 'science' has answered that question to its own satisfaction (see post #4). If others don't like that answer then they are free to come up with their own answers. To me, my wedding band is jewelry. To my wife it is a symbol. To a jeweler it is piece of merchandise. It is possible for a single thing to have multiple valid descriptions which vary according to a person's perspective.

Damn. If empathy is all I was able to convey in that post then I am going to give up debate. Without a doubt.

The rules of logic must be applied to something. In your case, physics, chemistry, biology, the scientific method, and all the others I mentioned. In the case of the goat herder, he gets to apply logic to none of those things. He cares for his goats, he feeds his family, he doesn't spit into the wind, and he don't mess around with the Taliban. I feel confident that the goat herder is not thought of as broken by his fellow goat herders. Unknown and therefore irrelevant to the goat herder. Religion doesn't think. People do. Would you mind addressing the goat herder specifically and tell me why he is broken? And since so many people keep bringing up evidence (or lack thereof) as a key component to the conclusion that people who believe in God are broken, I really would like to see what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "evidence is whatever they say it is". That is my point. You are complaining they are not following the rules and they don't even know there is a rule book. Very nice; both your comment and that old post. It is annoying to me that I've talked about these three little words probably 20 times and I still confuse the subtleties. The problem as I see it is that you are failing to recognize the reality of how a great many theists think. You are looking at the world in terms of the rules that you understand, but are failing to recognize that they are not working under those same rules. It doesn't matter if you show me that there is not really any evidence of God. You have to show it to the theist who believes that the sudden tingle on the back of his neck, that caused him to pause and not step out into the street thus avoiding being hit by a car, was not really the hand of God reaching out and keeping him safe. Until someone explains that to him, then determines whether or not he has adjusted his thinking, you cannot conclude that he is broken. You have no more evidence to conclude that they are broken based on that statement than they have that God exists. It is like concluding that someone has failed at being a mechanic when you don't know if they have ever seen a wrench or tried to work on an engine. I think where the three of you are going wrong is that you are judging others based on your standards. You are educated, critical thinkers who have debated the existence of God in terms of clear rules of logic, historical records, philosophy, empirical evidence, an understanding of the significance of the scientific method, a background in the natural sciences, an understanding of physics/biology/chemistry, a working knowledge of evolution, etc. And you are concluding that some illiterate goat herder in the mountains of Afghanistan is 'broken' because while dodging the Taliban and trying to find enough food to feed his family tonight, his musings on the universe have not made it obvious to him that belief in God is illogical. Reaching the point where you can conclude that what you've been taught all your life is wrong, takes some level of intelligence, education, skill and effort. I would be interested in seeing what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

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. That sounds contradictory. How does one know something for a 'fact', and at the same time feel you 'can never know the absolute truth'? If it is a fact, isn't it by definition also true? At least in the mind of the person who knows that fact? Regardless, my point was that some people believe in God but recognize that they could be mistaken. Right. Empirical evidence is what is required for you and something you will never get from theists. Empirical evidence is not required for everyone. I'd wager that half the theists in the world couldn't tell you what empirical evidence was if their lives depended on it.

Well I stand corrected. There is someone here who believes in unicorns. I didn't say you should treat the lack of evidence for unicorns and deities differently. I said no one here is advocating belief in unicorns. I have no desire to debate unicorns. Just for the record, when you say "without any evidence" you mean "without any evidence" that you will accept. Is that what happens? All theists claim his existence is a fact? There are no agnostic theists? So you won't be happy until there is 'scientific' evidence that the supernatural exists? Don't hold your breath. If you are talking of evidence that is acceptable to the average theist I think you will find plenty.

Since it is so obvious I am unsure why you are mentioning it. I don't. I think that it is quite common for an Israeli (Palestinian) to point out the flaws in the reasoning of a Palestinian (Israeli) who accepts an extraordinary claim as valid and true in the absence of (and often in direct contradiction to) available evidence. I see debates on this very site where both sides seem incredulous that the other side can be such a complete dolt. Yeah, pretty much. I am unsure why you need to point out that democrats and the others exist. Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. But surely that is no surprise to you as deities are supernatural and science does not address the supernatural. 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. Yes, you've already pointed out that it is not possible for an adult to conclude that a God exists.

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.

This is the same problem I have with what doG said. If I recall correctly, you were brought up a theist. Then, at some point down the road as you matured and understood more, you came to the conclusion that you were not a theist. 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?