Tres Juicy

Maybe a bit of mis-communication on my part, but I believe the words, ether and space are interchangable, not something in space, like; dust, atoms or photons. Personally not knowing, I refer to it as a; "continuum of un-real estate". Can't get much more of an ignorant meaning than that. The MM thing? It was done over a hundred years ago in a sterile, but ground based lab. Today we see many anomalies that were overlooked back then. If the Higgs boson is found to be the backbone of our universe, you'll not have to beat me up to change my mind. 'Till then, I'll believe that space is a physical entity, not simply a vacuum.

Are you talking about the fabric of space itself?

If you are, then I refer you back to this:

"Space is what we measure with a ruler, nothing more". There's no structure to it, just volume.

The aether idea came about because it was assumed that any form of wave needed a medium to travel through and since light could pass unhindered through a vacuum, there must be something else there as the medium.

This assumption was wrong.

Don't believe I referred to it as "aether", but ether, not that it matters. Would you reference the MM experiment to me since I'm not familiar with it. But space itself, I believe it is there whether we like it or not. Science may eventually convince me that it isn't a physical thing, but where there is ambiguity;I have my doubts. The Higgs boson, if it is found?, may shed some light on my ignorance.

Michelson-Morley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Space is there, but it's not comprised of any ether...

Let me put it another way: Imagine ether did exist, it would still have to exist somewhere.

That somewhere is space, the space that your ether would exist in.

I think I see what you're thinking, but it doesn't work that way. Space ins't made of anything, it's just space.

Einstein said something like "Space is what we measure with a ruler, nothing more". There's no structure to it, just volume.

You can't think of it any other way, however tempting it is.

MM experiment and lack of aether wind spring to mind.

More to the point, why are you so convinced that there is such a thing as aether?

There is no aether or ether....

Are you suggesting brining back a container of space?

If so it would be a vacuum and would be crushed (depending on the container) by the earths atmospheric pressure.

If you were to open the container under water there would be no bubble, the water would just rush in to fill the void.

 

Explain how you believe life forms evolved? I have no belief in this matter. Belief is a matter of opinion. It is subjective. It implies uncertainty about the issue under consideration. So I accept the enormous body of evidence from palaeontology, biology, genetics, embryology that life evolved as envisaged in the Modern Synthesis and modified by subsequent studies. (Details will be provided on request.)

Evolutionist is a perfectly respectable term to apply to those of us who believe in evolution.

A controversial idea put out about 20 years ago was that the use of fire was the key event; the point being that hairy creatures playing with fire are quite likely to incinerate themselves. Many on the the list I was then on were very strongly opposed to this (to a degree that was well beyond the merits or otherwise of the suggestion) but when I experimentally put a match to the hair on my forearm I was surprised at how much it flared up. I should say that I suffered no permanent harm!

Very doubtful.

All I can tell you is it's not a flux capacitor...

You don't understand

 

What don't I understand?

 

God.

Prove the existence of God.

 

Read the bible. Look at his creations. Pray. That's all the proof you need!

Circular reasoning is not proof.

 

Ha! You're a fine one to talk.

Turns out the bot is religious....

Some time ago there was a discussion on this topic which was derailed and locked. The following link provides definitive proof that dy/dx is in fact exactly a ratio:

 

http://thenewcalculu...dx_compared.pdf

 

Don't make me laugh!

One of the benefits of well-defining concepts prevents your mathematics professors from

misleading you through their gross ignorance. Shame on the lot of them for being paid excessive

salaries and not being worth half of what they earn!

 

The last fool who challenged me on this topic is one Dr. Rocket. You can read about his

ignorance at this link:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58476-understanding-how-leibniz-notation-can-be-justifiedas-

a-ratio/page__st__40

 

I warn all other idiot academics who cross my path to think twice before mouthing off their

stupidity. I will keep the exchanges and expose your ignorance to the world!

© John Gabriel

Author of the greatest unpublished work in mathematics:

What you had to know in mathematics but your educators could not tell you.

Talk about blowing your own trumpet!

I have a couple of links for you John

Help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

But what?

Answer that question and then get yourself on the next flight to Stockholm....

"I'm just too F#%king AWESOME!!"

Is not an acceptable answer to this

Doing anything affects the brain....

Eating baked beans affects the brain

Perhaps I should rephrase Earth's core to mean the center of the Earth. Your nineteen minutes sounds like too short of a window to cover such a distance at the rate of freefall. I would rather believe what I saw on T.V.

Surely the best way to learn...

Oddly, I have just taken an interveiw where the guy appeared to have come straight from "the aprentice" buzz word masterclass

If I hear the word "synergy" one more time today.....

This is actually a rather old idea

Open message to the OP, you say you go to bible college, i am going to assume that means you are religious, your use of the word evolutionist, suggests you are not only religious but a fundamentalist. I wonder how you would react if some one went to a religious forum and asked questions about the beliefs of Creatards? Yes, the term Evolutionist is insulting, so is Darwinist, they both suggest that not only is evolution a religion but that to believe evolution is the best explanation for the biodiversity makes you an atheist and that evolutionism is the religion of atheism. It is not, you are being systematically lied to by the people you are trusting to direct your education. Who, i would like to ask you, is the author of all lies?

Well... I was going to be a little more subtle, but this will work.

 

The Earth is very wide indeed. A freefall from the surface of the Earth to the core would take over three days.

HA! This made me laugh!

Hey everyone.

I'm going to a Bible College right now, and we're taking a class called Science and the Bible. We're learning about evolution vs. creationism, and later on in the course, we have to write a report. Because we don't want to make things up and assume what people who believe in evolution think, we have to ask some questions. I will be handing in your answers completely unaltered.

 

It would be awesome if you could answer them as best you could.

1. Do you believe in God? If so, briefly explain your view.
2. How do you think the universe began?
3. How do you think life originated?
4. Explain how you believe life forms evolved?
5. How old do you think the earth is and why?
6. Do you believe in life on other planets, aliens, and UFOs?
7. Is evolution still happening, and if so, what do you think will be the end result?
8. Do you believe in life after death? Explain.
9. How do your beliefs in origins and evolution affect your sense of purpose for your own life?
10. Any other comments.

Thanks!!!!

Just out of interest, what are your thoughts on the above questions?

8. Do you believe in life after death? Explain.

"If I thought I had to do a whole other life after this one I'd kill myself now"

You still have the choice to act, but it is only that your actions do not cause harm.

 

If it is a violation of free will for someone to choose to act in such a way, but then that action does not work, then I can easily prove that we have no free will by choosing to levitate off my seat. As I have not levitated off the seat, then I conclude (using the argument you used above) that free will does not exist.

 

However, if you accept that free will is the ability to choose, but not that the choice has to result in a successful action, then it is fine for someone to choose to harm and then no harm eventuate and it not to violate free will.

That kind of system would raise all kinds of questions - Why can a dog bite you and cause you harm, but I cannot?

I can clearly smash up objects with my hammer that I cannot smash up with my face - yet I cannot smash up a face with my hammer?!

It would deny the laws of physics.

This in itself could be contrued as proof of god, which is surely not acceptable to god. A god needs belief not just knowing he exists because of the evidence.

Remember, God is supposed to have infinite power and knowledge (and also good). Thus God could cause the same effect without anyone needing to suffer for it. Or, god could just design things so that the effect was not needed in the first place (ie: that the effect of the disaster is built in already without the need for it to occur).

 

Also, God is supposed to have created Heaven where no suffering occurs, so it is possible for god to create a "universe" without suffering.

This again can be argued by the fact that you appreciate the good things more when they are complimented by the not-so-good things.

If every day is a sunny day, then what's a sunny day?

But god created us in that way. He could have created us in a way that it was not necessary for hardship to build character.

 

God has unlimited power and knowledge. He could create us so that character would develop over time, or that character was inbuilt into us (think something like an instinct).

Again, the difficulty of the task is proportionate to the satisfaction and inherent value of its successful completion - I think that's important.

Hypothetically, god could create you with infinite knowledge and power and to be infinitely good, but in the end it would be worth more to you if you had struggled to get to that point. You would apreciate it more.

But, then that would mean gods plan was to have us suffer. remember this discussion is about whether or not god could have done things differently. In your argument, God could have done things differently, but instead chose to cause suffering.

 

As this is the point I am making, then your argument here actually supports my position.

Yes, I suppose it does a bit.... But religion would say that his reasoning is unfathomable and he moves in mysterious ways

No, you still make the choices, it is just that you have the knowledge imparted into you before you have to make the choice.

 

 

But if God wants us to learn this way, then it is because He chose to force us to learn in a way that required suffering, even though there is an alternative that he could have used.

Mysterious ways....

We have free will, we will chose whether or not we learn.

Someone once told me that pain is the universe's way of reinforcing a lesson

This is my argument. It is possible that a god exists that does not have the three qualities I am using for my point. If these types of gods exist, my argument has no bearing on them.

 

It is if God is all powerful, all knowing and good and valid alternatives exist that a mere mortal with limited knowledge can come up with, then if a god or gods exist then they can not have the properties of all powerful, all knowing and good.

How would you, as a mere mortal, know that they were valid?

But what if you could have that same experience without having to suffer? What if there was someone with the power to prevent you from injuring yourself?

 

God (because he has infinite power) has to power to prevent you from injuring yourself, but still allowing you to try and fail and learn from experience. So your argument doesn't hold.

The value of the knowledge is almost defined by how difficult it was to obtain - Don't you agree?

Actually this is a common problem when dealing with the concept of an all powerful being. People tend to think of it as just: Much more powerful.

 

There is nothing an all powerful being could not do. This is the source of my argument. In a way I have turned the argument: "That if something could be done magically, then you can't disprove it" and applied it in reverse.

 

If all things can be done magically and there is no limit to what can be done, then it is possible to do anything. This means that there can be no argument that relies on the all powerful being being limited in any way as to what they can do.

 

The result of this is that if the all powerful being could do anything without limits, then it is possible for them to create a universe where no suffering is possible ant plan the being has would still occur.

 

It means there is no counter argument to the claim that the god could make a universe without suffering. It means that any suffering is unnecessary.

 

But because of that, it means that a god that is good would not willing create a universe with suffering. And that a god that is all knowing would know that, and know the way to create a universe without that suffering.

Mysterious ways....

Like I said, because of the free will issue, maybe it's the only way?

There problem with this argument is that there is nothing self contradictory about that claim. As I said, I am not trying to refute all claims of a god, or refute religion in general.

 

I am only arguing that certain aspects claimed to be attributes of god can be self contradictory and thus refutable.

Even self contradictory claims can be backed up in this way.

Think of something that cannot be done with infinite knowledge and power...

Yes and no. If this were completely true, then we could know nothing about god. It means that no god we could conceive of can not be a representation of the true god. Even the existence of such a being would be intractable to us.

 

The result is that this would effectively disprove of every god and every religion.

 

So, if it is possible to even speculate anything about god, then it must mean that there are some aspects of god that we can understand. We might never fully understand, but we could understand, and that if something can be proven not to be part of that god, then we can understand that it is not part of the god.

 

My argument is that god can not be all powerful, all knowing and good at the same time. Thus at least one of those qualities can not be part of god.

Maybe we do know nothing of god. Maybe we've completely missed the point.

Maybe that's part of the plan, who knows...

What I have done is just to turn that argument on its head. By using the issue of not being able to disprove magic, I have use it to make the claim that if it can be done magically (by an all powerful, all knowing and good being) then you can't disprove it.

 

Thus by recognising that an all powerful being could make a universe without suffering can then not be disproved, it creates a discontinuity with what is observed (ie: that suffering exists).

 

This means that one of these things can not be true (it is not consistent). As we know that reality exists, then this means that the all powerful, all, knowing and good god can not exist.

 

As many religions require the existence of such a being, then this disproves these religions.

 

But, if someone said that their god did not have all three of these qualities, then my argument does not apply (and I would have to look for some other set of inconsistencies).

I like your reasoning, but I feel that you cannot defeat god with logic, after all it's his universe right?

I would love to see a logical argument that does disprove god, but I don't think it's possible.

I am only playing devils advocate on this and already I can wriggle out of perfectly sound logical arguments (it pains me to do so, but is also quite satisfying), imagine what someone with more knowledge on the subject than me and backed with real belief could do

God gives you nothing, at best it is a placebo.

You said it yourself in your opening post, you believe in a higher authority yet you are still bound by the same one as everyone else

You have no more power or liberty as anyone else, if anything you have only imposed more restrictions upon yourself with your belief.

Another great argument!

I will counter this when I have more time

I only asked a question about the physical change of pressure or vacuum on the container, not whether it would implode or explode.

Yes, but you were saying that space is a physical thing and that its removal would cause the chamber to collapse.

I was merely pointing out that this is not the case

What are the processes involved in creating mass from pure energy

Magic?