pears

Except that without change there would be no way to tell that time was 'proceeding'. Can time then actually be said to be 'proceeding' if there are no observers and no way to observe/measure the phenomenon?

Huh? Why? I'm not saying what the effects of gods are. I'm asking why getting rid of the concept of God would mean people would all suddenly live in harmony.

And if you want to get started now you could get an A Level (or equivalent) text book, beg, borrow, or buy and start working through it in your own time.

What evidence? You haven't cited any?

Welcome Ukyuu. A fantasy writer then?

OK so something really is pushing against something then. It's not just magic

How do you know that?

Which is irrelevant to my point.

Just because you never have doesn't mean other people won't.

How do you know? Do you hope to eliminate deceit and selfishness by eliminating the concept of God?

Thank you. That helps!

So here's a fairly basic question. I understand that rocket thrusters work by expelling hot gas into empty space, which results in motion in the opposite direction. This is because of the equal and opposite reaction to that force right? In my mind it's completely unintuitive that a thruster would work without pushing against something. So is this equal and opposite reaction explanation all there is to it? Is there a way of breaking this down into something that could be understood more intuitively or is it just a 'brute fact' that I need to accept?

Really? Without Gods there'd be no disputes over land, property, political ideologies?

And people who have no God? What's going to help them get along?

If you take away everything then you have to include space in that surely? Everything minus everything equals Nothing.

Then what do you mean by "true from a scientific standpoint"? Scientific theories are always open to falsification on the basis of new evidence.

Not a very scientific approach

The OP assumes Christ is a historical figure, and makes certain assumptions about his character. Is this discussion making those same presumptions or is this about whether he existed at all? Because that sounds like another topic to me.

Before a sensible discussion can take place first one must define "superior".

Rotating relative to what?

My understanding of the Turing test is that it is about conversation. Fully human intelligent behaviour is more than that.

I'm not sure passing a Turing Test is the same as having the equivalent capabilties of a human doing a desk job.

Provided those two or more people themselves exist

So it's wrong by an absolute and universal standard of morality that is not subjective, and is therefore external to humanity?