Phi for All

This is yet another reason I use the word "trust" instead of faith wrt science. Faith is for religion, where the sources are unobservable so belief needs to ignore conditions. Trust always has conditions when it comes to what you believe.

Some of us prefer to trust in the things we believe. Gods are unobservable by choice, which is far too coincidental for me. It's OK that you don't understand gravity and prefer to make up some garbage rather than study science. Intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, and I hope you find a lot of comfort in your invisible sky buddy. Truly.

! Moderator Note Pasting the same post twice? This is the very definition of soapboxing. If you're done with discussion, I'll need to close this.

We can keep it simpler. It's all belief because it's what people believe. The difference is what it's based on. Faith is based on belief in powers we don't observe but are convinced of their existence. Trust is based on belief in what can observe and quantify and explain scientifically. Wishful thinking is based on belief in what we hope is true. Faith might tell me I'll live eternally as some kind of heavenly soul being. Trust tells me my consciousness will fail as my body does, and when the body is dead "I" will cease to exist. Wishful thinking tells me some part of me will still be thinking thoughts after my body is gone. This is the way I've always defined belief.

It's no surprise that you don't understand, but I find your willful ignorance a bit disgusting. This is a debate you can have with yourself, as my ethical stance on abortion doesn't recognize your waffling and judgemental unreasonableness.

Before it can actually live separately from the woman?!

I've often wondered if divergence isn't a natural response to the many dichotomies present in modern societies. When everyone is telling you that your society is all about freedom, yet you experience the opposite, divergence from the norm seems like a reasonable response.

Sorry, neurodivergence defines human neurocognitive functions only. But your idea is valid when talking about people, so by all means let's talk about people.

! Moderator Note Are you still interested in discussing this topic?

Why would you spell anyone's name phonetically on a discussion forum? Most of us know how it's pronounced, so we don't need you to dumb it down for us (you also didn't spell it phonetically, you went out of your way to put "camel" in there for some reason). And if you hadn't noticed, your crowd (MAGA) loves to mispronounce anything that doesn't sound white or Christian, even though there are no white people in the Bible. It's done in derision, like non-white names are too stupid to bother with pronouncing them correctly.

Racist insult, that's how I read it. Purposely so.

The difference, of course, is that one can check the veracity of scientific theories. It doesn't matter what you were taught if it doesn't actually work that way. You make it sound like someone could practice science that was culturally accepted but didn't actually work. Another mistake you keep making about science is associating it with "truth". Truth is subjective; science and scientific theory is looking for the best supported explanations, not answers, and especially not "truth". Religion looks for truth, and tries to insist on it. Science is always looking to improve, so we don't etch things on stone tablets.

! Moderator Note This can't stay in a mainstream section without some supportive evidence, something that can be analyzed objectively. We need more than you waving your fist, especially if you're making claims about efficacy. Do this quickly, please.

And even your understanding of this is flawed, because you obviously haven't studied the theory of evolution, and seem unwilling to admit it. You even claim you understand it "often better" than those who have. Have you read up on the Dunning-Kruger studies? You're a novice in this area, yet you insist on criticizing it based on your limited knowledge. Is this a Christian thing? Do you feel some kind of superiority based on your faith that makes you think ridiculing something makes you better?

And this is demonstrably false. In fact, you've been corrected repeatedly on your poor understanding of the science you're ridiculing.

Just like you and evolution. How hypocritical is it of you to criticize those who understand what you don't?

Why do you want to use the same word to describe both an automobile accident and Heinrich Himmler?

"The Lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- Gertrude

Watergate didn't "turn out to be true". Evidence of conspiracy was found, and that's the difference. This is another misuse of the word "theory", imo, conflating it with "it probably happened this way". Scientific theories have mountains of evidence.

More misrepresentation. You just claimed that the theory of evolution claims we're from nature and gives no further explanation. How is this a strong argument? Are you conflating Big Bang theory with evolutionary theory? Perhaps you misunderstand the words. You seem to be demanding that "chaos" be used only in a way that makes you comfortable. Since you don't bother to cite your sources, we have no way to determine what "some claim". You seem to be cherry-picking certain beliefs, ridiculing them, and then hoping we'll treat all beliefs regarding evolution the same way. Weak, weak, weak. This sounds like a you problem. Humans ARE animals, get over it. Nothing devalues us by telling the truth. Quite the opposite, it tells this atheist that it's our brains that give us our advantages, and I prefer to use them alongside scientific methodology as opposed to praying to Iron Age spirits for my redemption.

Is this more ChatGPT bullshit? You have no idea what "most atheists" believe in general, and you definitely don't know how "most atheists" feel about the theory of evolution. You don't need to be an "evolutionary biologist" to understand the theory, it's pretty logically consistent. Why is it important to you that something must be discoverable "from scratch"? Is this because you think people find religion "by scratch"? I assure you, it takes quite a bit of work to go from nature spirits to a god like yours. Evolution shows us that supernatural forces are NOT necessary. YOU erroneously believe that evolution has anything to do with creation, so of course the information you fed into ChatGPT is in error. Your arguments are extremely weak, based solely on your misunderstandings of science, and you show it with every post.

! Moderator Note Closing this in favor of the better thread.

Your idea is going to be attacked because science demands rigorous assessment, but remember, on this site we don't attack people. Nobody is unhappy with you personally, nobody is upset. If someone says your explanation sounds like a wild-ass guess, it's probably because you haven't mentioned evidence that supports it. We try to remove subjective arguments, and arguments that "feel" right, in favor of those with evidence that allows us to test them and possibly base predictions on them. Just remember that you aren't this idea. Nobody replying here is talking about you personally. The responses are about this concept. I think most people here want you to see that, moving forward, you should learn how mainstream science is reflected in your explanation rather than continue to re-write/redefine accumulated human knowledge.

! Moderator Note I think you need to focus on your first Speculative thread, and support that instead of starting other speculative threads based on the first one (which you need to support a bit better). No sense building on a shaky foundation.

The radiation doesn't come from the BH, but rather from interactions just outside the event horizon. The math tells us nothing has the energy required to be "released" once past the EH.