Phi for All

! Moderator Note Stop right there. You can't use a speculation like this to support further speculation. If you want to establish support for "those who created us", do so in another thread in either Speculations or Religion. And if you're using omnipotent capabilities as an argument, it won't be accepted because science.

! Moderator Note You can't support one speculation with arguments that failed in another speculation. You need to support the idea with evidence, or move on from the idea, or this thread will be closed.

Putting this first makes the rest fairly meaningless. If survival is Job #1, it could come at the cost of your second and third choices. If it comes down to a choice between you getting food or the rest of us getting food, you'll feed your belly before your "inner soul", and doing something good for others takes a back seat to your survival. As for contributing to human race running, you'll have to clarify what you're talking about. Does your survival contribute to the human race running?

How can it be "a very good example of the above"? In "the above", you claim "the scientific world approaches the end of its capabilities", then go on to rant about building even bigger colliders and technological challenges. Your reasoning doesn't seem very sound. Your argument is weak. And you aren't dealing with other arguments like cost comparisons and knowledge gained. It's starting to sound like soapboxing.

This is a rigor-free assumption I think you need to support a little, or at all. It doesn't matter how little about science you know, a statement like this is basically trying to Beg the Question. What makes you think this dilemma exists?

I don't think it's ever irrational to disbelieve something based on faith. I'm skeptical that the "statistics" used to form accurate predictions "confirm its doctrine". Can you give us an example of such statistical evidence?

To me, this says "If you're tired of reason, clarity, and predictability, and want to base your beliefs on things that can't be supported with evidence, this book won't disappoint!"

! Moderator Note There are no common minds here, so the premise of the OP is flawed, and this thread won't work. Since there were so many enthusiastic responses, I won't spamban the new god member, but that's my first reaction. Obviously some members are interested in the new knowledge this encounter represents.

! Moderator Note This is exactly what we want. Members must be able to take part in the conversation without requiring them to leave the site, or open documents they may not trust. The idea is to make the arguments for your idea here, in this discussion, and if you need to paste something from your website into your post to support them, please do so. This rule also protects us if you're only here to drive traffic to your website. Mostly, we want to hear about the evidence you have that led you to your conclusions. Again, thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. We don't allow members to advertise their websites in threads here. We discuss science here. There are other sites where you can advertise, but this isn't one of them. Thanks for understanding.

It wasn't that long ago that he called himself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He's proven he's barely socially conscious, let alone liberal, and also that he's not conservative about anything. He knows the GOP is unlikely to raise his taxes, and they certainly won't set a progressive limit on his personal earnings.

Musk is a wealthy, right-wing extremist who easily embraces conspiracy and is only out for himself. All American capitalists at that level couldn't care less about how their workers are faring in life. He's almost uncaring enough to run for office. Maybe 2028, for the MAGAQANON party.

! Moderator Note I usually move threads that veer non-mainstream to Speculations, but capital-G God can't go there, so this conversation is over. If this is the kind of reasoning you plan on using in discussions, it's not welcome here. Nobody has that kind of time to waste.

Money blinds people when it's always the focus. It's like looking into the sun for clarity. The People haven't yet figured out how to elect a politician that works for the People instead of for the wealthy. Most still think a businessperson makes a good leader, when they're really focused on making business even more profitable. So many Americans have tried to support this political system in good faith, only to be preyed upon by extremists looking to twist the advantages and take what belongs to others. We don't get any benefits from being productive any more, other than staying out of our own prisons. I think there are quite a number of "Americans" who've already sold out, who never liked democracy in the first place, and are looking to any number of authoritarian alternatives to take the place of a system they see as weak. These folks don't think we can fix it, and want to tear it down, which would make everything ripe for the authoritarian takeover they envision. These are the ones that scare me. I don't know what to do with that kind of dumb. These folks want there to be no public schools because they went to bad public schools, and skoff at the idea of making better ones.

And in a two party system where the media entertains rather than informs, both parties are using this bumper sticker. For perspective here, in Colorado we have a Senate race where the incumbent Democrat is leading the Republican challenger in most polls by 7-10 points at least. FOX News ran a piece over the weekend claiming their pollsters show the race as a complete toss-up. Each party hires private firms aligned with them to run "independent" polling, and then gets to report that to the media. And ultimately, it's campaign donations from the People that help misinform the People on this grand scale. A stupid system for an uneducated, uninformed, unprepared populace.

Is it a PC or is it a laptop? Laptops usually have a built-in touch pad that acts as a mouse. If not disabled, your thumbs can run across it and cause the cursor to move.

You're apparently easily amused. Theories and models are NOT proof of anything. This seems poorly derived. What does one have to do with the other? Brevity is often inadequate.

I'm fairly certain he's waiting to see if the midterms get some of his SecState candidates elected, and how the non-MAGA Republicans vote. He knows he needs some of these battleground states to ignore the votes of the People and seize the electors to hand him those states (like Nevada). I think he also wants to know how much of a hold he still has on them. I don't think he'll run unless he's fairly certain of winning. From all accounts, a big part of the stolen election scam is him refusing to be cast as a loser. And there's the money. I've heard a candidate for office can keep extra funds for their next campaign, so I'm sure TFG has a steady income for life from donations even if he never actually holds office again, but continually hints at it and holds rallies and forms leadership PACs and supports other candidates. This may be why he really fears the 1/6 Committee's findings, because I'll bet they can take that campaign money away from him if he's no longer eligible to hold office.

I was trying to explain your list of incorrect assumptions, but obviously clarity is not your aim. I withdraw my attempt to help. I think that's a red herring. I commented about the idea of Doctor Derp's capital G God making imperfect humans who would evolve to eventually fix their flaws. It was a new argument to me, and makes less sense the more I think about it. Evolution just doesn't work like that. So instead of accepting the evidence that changes in allele frequency within a population over vast amounts of time produce the results described by the Theory of Evolution, you think I should believe there's an unobservable, omnipotent, and omniscient deity making it all work? Amazing patience this god must have to make it all look like it took billions of years when they could have whipped it up instantly!

Failing to achieve a "pinnacle" isn't a flaw? Interesting. How about our many physical design flaws, like our eyes, our backs, our teeth, our knees, our misrouted nerves? This is the way I lean, of course, but I don't need a god to have created this life. I think this is an assumption on your part, and I think it's mostly wrong. Don't you mean atheists discussing evolution for such a long time?

! Moderator Note Science discussion needs more than a general topic, we need a good starting place so we know exactly what you want to discuss. Was this going to be a discussion about something in the news regarding science? Please give us a bit more when you start your next thread. This one is closed.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. Since you're making speculative assertions wrt fusion, I've moved this to Speculations. You'll need to support those assertions with some evidence and sound reasoning, something to elevate it from a wild-ass guess on your part. We don't bother with conspiracy here because we're a science discussion forum, so please don't go off on moon hoax tangents if you really want to discuss your fusion ideas. If you persist in conspiracy, we'll ask you to take it elsewhere by banning your account. Good luck.

Peterkin put a colon before listing the incorrect assumptions. I missed it the first couple of times I read it, too. This is the first time I think I've heard the argument that God purposely made flawed humans with the idea of using evolution as a mechanism to fix them eventually. What a mysterious way to create something!

All of them are incorrect assumptions not supported by evidence.

This is the Physics section, and punching is kinetic energy, so if we know how many joules a single punch generates, we can multiply to cook a chicken. For the actual physicists, it might be more of a challenge (and funnier) to figure out how hard a single punch would have to be in order for air resistance to cook the chicken.