Phi for All

"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.

The spacetime region around matter that has overcome both electron and neutron degeneration is outrageously curved, so gravity seems extremely strong there. So strong that nothing, no matter, not even light can escape once it crosses into the event horizon of the region. Black holes don't send anything back out into the universe.

Are you dissatisfied with our current explanations for these phenomena? The danger here is that you haven't understood the science involved in mainstream theories ("Especially as I am not a scientist and to be honest I wasn't science educated at school"), and have opted instead for something that makes more sense to you. It seemed magical to you as you were writing it, because it IS magic, it's flying over the difficult parts to get to the parts that seem more reasonable. Unfortunately, scientific methods require us to plod forward, taking the next step in an idea only when we're absolutely sure it's the right one, based on a foundation of trustworthy knowledge. Theory is the strongest explanation we have in science, partly because they're tested so often and rigorously, and partly because they allow us to make accurate predictions. I'd suggest starting in our Speculations section. Focus on a couple of your concepts (maybe not the "human resonation" or the "spiritualistic auras"), give us some supportive evidence, and I guarantee some learning will happen.

Why, specifically? Can you monetize the idea, or is this about getting credit for it, or something else? If it covers "several sciences", which discipline do you want to use to discuss it (if you decide you want to share it)? Does this idea explain something we currently don't understand, or is it an idea that makes better sense to you than current theory?

Do you support Zionism, MigL? Why do you insist on these insulting strawmen? Please feel free to shove this "Maybe you think Jews" comment back up your ass where it came from.

This argument would hold more weight if we weren't witnesses to the lengths Israel has gone to in their cleansing efforts. Ever since its creation, Israeli policy has been to keep punching their neighbors in the face, then overreact when that neighbor punches back, hopefully gaining a little more territory in the process. It's Middle Eastern Jim Crow strategy, designed to oppress while subjugating. American conservatives taught them well, just keep your foot on their throats and tell everyone you have to keep kicking them or they'll hurt somebody.

This always seemed like an extremist stance. The quotes from the Bible say that green plants are given for food, but it never says "Don't eat the animals!" the way it says "Don't eat apples from that tree over there!" Just like abortion and divorce, isn't it possible their god disapproves of something but allows it in some circumstances? And the idea that all those obligate carnivores were munching nuts and dandelions is just crazy, as is the idea that their god changed up the physiology of everything after A&E got too curious. I don't think there's anything unethical about eating meat, not back then, not today. Animal husbandry and agriculture upgraded us from hunters and gatherers. What we should focus on is being able to raise our food animals without destroying the habitats of all the non-food animals we live alongside of. Diversity in all things. No more monocropping, no more factory farming. There are better ways.

It's a form of Begging the Question that starts with a redefinition. The key is to not accept the premise. I think this is an attempt to say "God's violence is natural and to be expected" as well as "Everyone is evil". I've heard the bit where we're all sinners, but stretching "evil" to fit us all is a new one for me.

Definitions should NOT be stretched to fit your purpose. In doing so, you've diluted the concept into meaninglessness. Anything that causes hardship is evil? What good is having the word evil if there's no distinction between it and affliction or obstacle? Evil requires intent. Evil requires a conscious mind behind the hardship or affliction. A flood after hard rains that destroys a town isn't evil, but if that flood was purposely created by someone (blow up the dam, divert the river, smite the wicked, etc), then that someone is evil. Please don't redefine the way everybody else uses a word just because it seems to support your argument.

Doesn't intent play a part in your definition of "evil"? Where is the intent in nature and natural phenomena? Nature doesn't cause people to experience evil. If you think it does, give examples.

There are many reasons, but you don't behave as though you appreciate the methodology. You claim to have found religious answers that make more sense to you, and now it looks as though you're trying to justify not studying more "science".

A common misconception for people who don't know science.

If it's nature, it will happen no matter what you do. If it's God, there will be a way to avoid it somehow by being a "better" person.

Nature isn't an entity like a deity, so it's not really capable of "committing" anything. Most of the "violence" you're highlighting are events like fire, floods, and lightning, which can't happen unless certain conditions are present, unlike the designed destruction written of in the Bible. Caring for one's environment is a result of intelligence and understanding. Other animals make sure their immediate environment is kept functional. The desire to preserve the species we can is a nod to diversity, which seems to protect this whole planet from the harshness of our environments.

I was looking for something along the lines of "You're right, I shouldn't have edited iNow's statement to make it look like he was being unreasonable and ridiculous, I'll avoid fallacious logic in the future." I know you disagree with him, but you can do it honestly. It also looks like you're moving the goalposts here by talking about motive. This seems so important to you that you're willing to cheat to make your points. Next you'll be breaking out ChatGPT to argue in bullet points for you. Solutions to safety concerns seems like a red herring considering the topic is about whether or not gender is even relevant in terms of framing such concerns in the first place.

I see that now. I was on my phone earlier and it didn't ID the link.

Sorry, you seem more interested in luring me offsite than in discussing this here, where you joined to supposedly discuss this.

I gave you a -1 on your reputation for this obvious strawman, made triply insulting because you quoted the reasonable statement, but edited it in your response, then called it ridiculous. Not an intellectually honest argument, in addition to being fallacious.