Phi for All

Don't be fooled by pop-sci vividness. Think about it. Why have you only built 1% of the things you could have built with your LEGO blocks? Because you built the 1% of things that made the most sense to you, that were of the most value, and that pleased you most. A great deal of the rest of what you could have built made no sense, had no value, and was just plain ugly. One can easily imagine that there might be some useful chemical combinations we haven't discovered yet, but most likely there are an enormous amount of chemicals that aren't as good as the ones we know about.

Not an expert, but if this is an "uncontrollable desire" then a neurological source seems unlikely. Most movement disorders are described as "involuntary" and "abnormal" spasms and contractions. Would you describe your "desire" as more of an urgent need to change positions, or is it actually a physical twitch that moves you without conscious effort? Your physician should be able to distinguish between behaviors if you describe what you're going through, but it sounds to me like something similar to restless leg, where you feel uncomfortable until you turn over and change positions.

Can you verify this premise for us first? Do you have any evidence this is so? I'm not a fan of IQ tests, but I've never heard of a ceiling score of 160. I have heard of people who supposedly have a higher score.

Paulsrocket has been banned for really bad faith arguments (like you can't trust science because it's always changing).

! Moderator Note Enough! Take your ignorance and go someplace where it's welcome.

Do you see how contradictory and confusing your posts can be? Please aim for more rigor, you're challenging mainstream science so you need to be extra persuasive in your arguments. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary support.

This is meaningless. We can't know anything about the universe before the BB. Spacetime is what becomes so extremely distorted that, beyond the event horizon, there is no way to navigate anywhere but towards the degenerate matter. In a spaceship in normal spacetime, the gravitational attraction from a sun is something you can compensate for by firing your thrusters, using more thrust the closer you are to the sun so you don't fall in, using any of a number of directions to take you away from the sun. But once you move beyond the event horizon of a collapsed sun (black hole), spacetime is so badly warped that no other courses are available to you except straight in. We can't observe exactly what happens, but the math says no amount of energy expended can overcome how distorted spacetime is inside a black hole. This isn't a very technical explanation, so I hope it doesn't lead you further into the weeds. Spacetime becomes extremely curved in the presence of the degenerate matter, but of course it doesn't cease to exist.

Alkonoklazt has been suspended for a week because staff would like a break from all the rebellion against the system.

This is wrong. Even in billions of years when we move out of the sun's main sequence and into the red giant phase, it won't "kill" "the entire solar system". It will change a great deal, but the system will still exist. Honestly, you need to study more and read popular science articles less. What on Earth makes you think we aren't looking? Or, in your ignorance, do you imagine the efforts aren't "focused" enough for your understanding? Trying to learn that now (we've only had one chance in the past), but some people insist on holding their ignorance close, like an old friend, and ignore our current efforts. I guess it's easier to gripe about it than learn about it. You started out with a title about exploring our own solar system, then immediately went to "focusing on finding other, younger systems with planets that can harbour and nurture life", and ended with conspiracy, conflating crashing a satellite into the moon with mass extinction events. None of this has squat to do with Astronomy and Cosmology, it's a flawed starter right out of the gate with too many misconceptions, and past discussions with you (particularly wrt expansion vs explosion) have shown you're very wedded to your ideas and don't deal well with being corrected. Can you give me a focus for this thread (FTL travel in Engineering maybe, or Ecology & the Environment for a conversation about negative effects), so it doesn't end up like all the rest, with you getting your reputation marked down for being sloppy and unrigorous while nothing meaningful gets discussed?

Seriously?! Not a single comment did that. Every single reply has told you exactly what the problem is with your argument. Now you're either engaging in bad faith, or you just can't grasp the concept that when the entire universe expands, it's NOT expanding INTO anything. It can't, because there is NOTHING else except the universe. If you can focus on this and stop ignoring it, you may begin to see and break this 20 year cycle of ignorance. We all wish you the best!

! Moderator Note This has been explained so often to you in this thread that it's clear you're trolling the forum with specious arguments you have no intention of ever giving up. This breaks the rules we have on bad-faith arguments, soapboxing, and trolling. I'm closing this since you keep bringing up other issues every time you get corrected. This behavior will get you banned if you keep it up. Nobody wants to discuss anything with someone who ignores facts in favor of some agenda.

I think you're right. When I'm talking about people believing strongly in something they can't support, I'm using faith to mean blind faith.

I understand all that, I just see no particular efficacy in using the same term to describe what I see as completely different behavior. If history has taught me that someone is usually very capable at work assigned to them, I'll tell them I trust them with this new assignment, not that I have faith in them. I'm using past experience as a metric of my trust. And I really needed a word to describe the kind of belief that the Abrahamic religions were requiring of me. Sacred ideas, inviolate texts, holiness everywhere, and things that didn't make sense but I was supposed to believe them anyway, That belief was supposed to be unshakeable, and these beliefs were the most important beliefs. So that's what I use the term faith for, belief that doesn't require evidence to support it.

I observe quite a big difference between the way someone believes in things they can verify, and things they can't but still believe. To me, it's all belief, but faith, and we're talking about religious faith here, seems different than trust. I don't think your OED definition hits the mark. It mashes together the concepts I'm trying to separate. It's definitely not about "I have faith that PersonX is a good person", which I would put under a third category of belief, wishful thinking. It's something you hope is true, can't prove, but aren't as adamant about. And yes, it's made up. That's the way the language works when there's a need to differentiate. The way I'm asked to believe in science is different than the ways I was asked to believe in Christianity. And I'll admit that you have a completely different outlook in the UK on religion than my examples in the evangelical US. I have relatives that will tell you faith is the strongest form of belief BECAUSE it requires no evidence. They talk about how your faith must be unshakeable and steadfast, and how any doubt is wrong. They're proud that they don't question the things they're taught. Asking for evidence is almost sacrilegious. So yes, making a distinction between faith and trust isn't a mainstream concept, but it's one that's helped me in reasoning my way in modern human life.

mar_mar has been banned for soapboxing and bad faith arguments.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth.

You've shown that you aren't really interested in the explanations that have been put forth. Like all the other creationists before you, you mock what you don't understand, and flee from rigorous questions. Have faith that you're as ignorant now as when you showed up. Keep pouring god into those gaps in your knowledge! Wishing you all the best elsewhere.

But it should give The People back some skin in the game, which We haven't had for a few decades. The Republicans gave up representing The People and started focusing on corporate interests under Reagan, and the Democrats did the same under Clinton. The difference in donations was too much to pass up. Now We have major issues that 70% of us all agree on, but the corporations don't so we get no action on what could be some of the best, easiest solutions available to us. Overpopulation is quite closely related to capitalism from what I've read, so perhaps it's finally time for the US to embrace public and state funding with no private leeching allowed. That would be the old European way, but perhaps I'm over glamorizing a system I didn't live in.

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly. Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

All right, I have no idea what you're talking about. *sigh* Is it hard for you to focus? My made up neighbors had a made up situation where they didn't understand how their garbage was being handled. They thought it was because they prayed for it, but I know it's because the city has a collection agreement. One is a lie (especially if I don't correct them), the other is the truth. My evidence is the bills I get from the city, and if I get up early enough, I can actually observe garbage collectors (not gods) picking up the trash. My question was designed to get you to see how sometimes the things people believe have no foundation in the real world. I wanted you to see what it's like to watch someone with bizarre religious beliefs struggle to explain the natural world when you know differently. Are you trying to say that my premise is bad? OK. Here's another. There are some Christians who believe that their god tests their faith by using snakes like in the Bible. They bring venomous snakes into church and people handle them because the preachers tell them their god will keep them safe. It killed so many of the faithful that most states made it illegal, but you can still do it in West Virginia. Do you think I should say nothing when I hear about someone who does this, because it's part of their faith in their god? Or do you think I should tell them it's a lie, and they are very likely to get bitten and die if they do this? What would you tell them? I'm going to guess based on past postings and say you'll be going with a fallacious response, most likely a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It just occurred to me that this could be a procrastinatory practice. You know you have a huge mountain to climb, so you start looking for reasons not to start; looks like rain, need new shoelaces, is this the best route? Lots of science to study. Looks like some discrepancies, need new books, is this really true? Much easier to blow it all off as not worth it because of all the enigmas. Saves a LOT of time.

None of this has anything to do with evolution, but how do you explain how so many atheists live moral, compassionate lives without a god to urge them or force them into it? How do you explain when non-religious people have a very well-developed conscience? Could it be that morality doesn't need religion to be effective? Could it be that judging people the way you do isn't really moral at all? I actually think it's immoral that you love a god that wants to torture me for eternity. Shame on you!

Well, that's something completely different. Of course we're made up of the same elements the universe has available. That doesn't mean individuals evolve during their own lifetime. Evolution's effects are only seen as succeeding generations happen. It's very difficult to talk science with you when you have SO MANY misconceptions and yet you still think your arguments from ignorance are relevant. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows. The benefit of a thought experiment is that you can arrange the situation to fit a need. I needed you to tell me how you would deal with a neighbor who didn't understand something but believed his god had done it, that's all. You first told me you would tell them the truth, but now it sounds like you would let them believe what you know is a lie (that god is the one taking care of their trash). I've known a LOT of Christians who believed like this, that it's better to let someone believe in a lie than to question their faith. It's funny though. It sounds like you want to tell people about the lies of science and other religions, but when it comes to YOUR religion, it's better to let people believe what they want. Isn't that funny?

Nice to know it was a mistake trying to discuss this with you. Enjoy always being right.

You claimed religion doesn't make scientific claims about how things function in the natural world, that "none of them are scientific claims". iNow pointed out it just takes ONE example to make your statement false. Then you started to waffle about it. Look, attempts at Intelligent Design being taught in US schools are chock full of examples of religion rewriting science and making scientific claims. Can you please admit it's wrong to generalize and just move on with this discussion?