|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Limits of Religious Belief | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists. Sure it is there, Paul visited the third heaven. Percy I believe in God just like you believe that something existed at T=0-43 that expanded into the universe we have today. You don't know where it come from or why it chose that moment 13.8 billion years ago to begin to expand.There is nothing known about the first 300,000 years. There is a lot of speculation but that is all that it is. so, whether you accept it or not you believe by faith that something existedjust like I believe in God by faith. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi dwise1,
Sorry about that I correct the formatting. And what I was talking about was where all the oil came from that I had mentioned in the message he replied to. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22930 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
ICANT in Message 46 writes: Percy writes: There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists. Sure it is there, Paul visited the third heaven. Sure he did.
Percy I believe in God just like you believe that something existed at T=0-43 that expanded into the universe we have today. I think you mean T=10-43. I believe that that time duration is part of a scientific theory representing our best understanding of the early universe based upon the available evidence and subject to change in light of new evidence and/or improved understanding.
You don't know where it come from or why it chose that moment 13.8 billion years ago to begin to expand. What does naming things we don't know prove?
There is nothing known about the first 300,000 years. There is a lot of speculation but that is all that it is. Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove?
so, whether you accept it or not you believe by faith that something existed just like I believe in God by faith. What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not faith. But the side comment I made in passing is not the thread's topic, which is whether people should be pushing their religious views into the public sphere. Leprechauns Bless! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2228 Joined:
|
Hi Percy,
ICANT writes:
Percy writes:
There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists.Sure it is there, Paul visited the third heaven. The only source of this is a book that has been written almost two thousand years ago, and that has been copied, adapted, edited and rearranged through the centuries. The original account, as far as it can be discerned, could be the result of Paul having a stroke, having eaten funny mushrooms, describing a bad dream after a copious meal, or just plainly confabulating an unlikely story to get attention. Those are all far more plausible explanations than that it really happened. How anyone in the twenty-first century can be so gullible as to take this Biblical account as literal truth is beyond me."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Your correction of the formatting of your Message 44 made all the difference. Best to verify that one's message is formatted correctly and to correct any problems before walking away from it.
And what I was talking about was where all the oil came from that I had mentioned in the message he replied to. But that still does not answer my question (Message 45):
dwise1 writes: And what the hell is the conversion of existing terrestrial matter into biomass supposed to have to do with the earth accreting more mass? What the hell are you talking about? I see you arguing that the earth's past biomass over vast periods of time originated through accretion; id est, it rained down from interplanetary space onto the earth's surface thus increasing the earth's mass.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Oscar? Hence my question, "What the hell are you talking about?" Accretion is not how biomass forms. How could you possibly not realize that biomass starts forming from photosynthesis converting pre-existing molecules of water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates (eg, C6H12O6) and oxygen. That biomass then provides food for animals, as so on. Planetary accretion from space plays no direct role in the formation of biomass. Why would you ever think that it did? And how could you possibly expect Big Bang Theory to explain the formation of biomass? Biomass forms because matter and energy already exist and will form regardless of how that matter and energy came into existence. It's like how evolution, being an inherent property of life, exists and operates regardless of how life had gotten started in the first place; the moment that life got started (regardless of how that happened) evolution also got started. So your "questions" do not make any sense at all. (Message 44)ICANT writes: Thats a total of 182,740,600,000,000 trillion tons of material. I'll interpret that as
1.827406 × 1014 × 1012 × 103kilograms = 1.827406 × 1029 kilograms A big number. A truly astronomical number. The problem with such large numbers is that unscrupulous types (eg, creationists such as Kent Hovind, Republicans trying to gut social programs or aid to Ukraine) will use them to deceive their audiences. I discuss such a case in my page, DWise1: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim, which examines a Kent Hovind claim that at the rate that the sun is losing its mass through "burning its fuel" (5 million tonnes per second) then five billion (109) years ago the sun would have been so massive and have so much more gravity as to have "sucked the earth in". The rate of mass loss is close enough, but Hovind's deception comes from throwing astronomically large numbers at you and then doing a lot of hand-waving. By doing the math (which Hovind doesn't do and which he forbids his audience to do or to listen to anyone who has done the math), we find that in 5 billion years that sun had lost 788,923,149,367,500,000,000,000 tons (7.88923×1023 tons), yet another astronomical number. But we can get some perspective by comparing that number to the total mass of the sun: 1.98855 × 1027 tons. That means that the total solar mass lost so far is only 0.03965755% of the sun's total mass, a few hundredths of one percent. And since the sun's gravity is directly proportional to its mass, then the ancient sun's gravity was just a few hundredths of one percent greater, far too little change to have "sucked the earth in", but rather instead by only about 40,000 miles. In the case of Republicans, they try to "balance the budget" by cutting vitally needed social programs which in reality only account for a couple percent of the total discretionary budget; starving the poor will only succeed in starving the poor, not in balancing the budget. So don't let anyone fool you with big-sounding numbers. But looking at your own very large number and comparing it to the earth's total mass, I found something interesting:
The earth's total mass is 5.972168×1024 kg. You gave a total biomass mass of 1.827406 × 1029 kilograms That is about 30,000 times greater than the mass of the earth. Something isn't right. While I'm not intimately familiar with coal formation, it does make a lot of sense that much of the biomass' mass would have returned to the environment to contribute to the formation of more biomass. I do not understand why you would work with raw biomass figures instead of decayed biomass. As an example, consider peat bogs. And it's not clear why you talk about accretion of matter from space. Are you assuming that the only way for that decaying biomass to be buried is through the accretion of meteoric matter from space? Don't you realize that the earth's surface is geologically active? Sedimentary layers are not formed through the accretion of meteoric matter, but rather through the redistribution of materials on the earth's surface.
ABE:{
IOW: Yes, it is indeed a geological phenomenon.
} What part of geology don't you understand?
It can be very difficult and tiring to try to figure out what scientific illiterates are talking about.
ADDENDUM:
Could you please do me a favor? Please tell me how you think that the sun "burns its fuel." I honestly have no idea how the non-scientific think that it happens, since I had learned the answer in elementary school (Our Mr. Sun from the Bell System Science Series (1956 - 1964) ). And what I've read from and about Kent Hovind indicates to me that he doesn't know how the sun "burns its fuel", very much how what creationists say about "evolution" indicates that they don't understand anything about it. So could you please enlighten me as to how others think that the sun works? I would appreciate it.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2338 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
It is not a geological phenomenon.
sure it is, just ask a geologist. Even if it wasn't a geological phenomenon you still haven't answered why you would expect a astrophysics theory to explain something that isn't astrophysical in nature.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined:
|
[qs=Percy,
Percy writes: What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not faith. Assumptions are not evidence. If it is then my Assumption that God exists are just as valid as those it takes to get to 300,000 years from the time that something began to expand. I have enough experiences that God has been in my life that is evidence enough for me. If I told you some of those many experiences, you would not believe them so I won't waste my time.
Percy writes:
But they have been named.
What does naming things we don't know prove? Percy writes: Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove? It would prove that there are millions of young people that have been indoctrinated in your unreligious society in the last 63 years because they believed they were being taught the truth, because they were not told that everything they were being taught was based on assumptions. It was taught as a fact.
Percy writes: But the side comment I made in passing is not the thread's topic, which is whether people should be pushing their religious views into the public sphere. What is the difference between pushing religious views and you pushing your unreligious views on the public?"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Doc,
DrJones* writes: Even if it wasn't a geological phenomenon you still haven't answered why you would expect a astrophysics theory to explain something that isn't astrophysical in nature. Well since the earth is only 4 billion years old and the production of Bio Mass to produce 3.5 trillion barrels of oil would take a pretty big spell. Then you have to cover it up with up to 5 miles deep of soil and rock which would take a super big spell. God Bless,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
ICANT writes: I have enough experiences that God has been in my life that is evidence enough for me. If I told you some of those many experiences, you would not believe them so I won't waste my time. Given that you tell us you're not shy and that you're happy to write thousands of words on practically any other subject there must be other reasons you won't tell us about your conversations and experiences with this god of yours. Us not believing you can't be the reason as you know that we don't believe a word you write about anything but you write anyway. So what is it? I mean, here you are a witness, holding actual evidence of god in the world, but all you can do is brag about it. Sharing is caring, let's hear all about it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22930 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
ICANT in Message 52 writes: Percy writes: What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not faith. Assumptions are not evidence. What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not an assumption either. You've been corrected on this dozens of times, yet you keep mindlessly repeating it. Here's you are making the same claim over and over (and usually being corrected) in this and other threads:
ICANT in various threads writes: The BBT is based on assumptions.... Because everything you believe is based on the assumption that something existed at T-43 ... The theory is based on assumptions according to Stephen Hawking. ... Assumptions is not evidence. ... All science has is assumption of what could happen... ... Which was an assumption on his part as he had no evidence to support the claim. ... There are more than 17 of those mysterious events in which no evidence is available to support the assumptions that have to be made to introduce them. ... That assumption has to be accepted as a fact. ... In other words Phat if you don't know the origin of something all the assumptions you make about the origin and the following things that happened will probably be wrong. ... Assumptions are involved. ... These are devised from the assumption made by men. ... The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10-43 s. ... Some facts would be great to base things on than assumptions. ... If there is no scientific data prior to T=10-43 s, where would any scientist get data to make assumptions of what took place prior to T=10-43 s? ... They all require assumption after assumption to present anything. Why after all this time do you still believe that calling something an assumption is a valid argument? Certainly there are assumptions out there, and in the right thread we should examine them, but your knee jerk reaction to anything related to science is to mindlessly call it an assumption.
If it is then my Assumption that God exists are just as valid as those it takes to get to 300,000 years from the time that something began to expand. In the right thread, what assumptions are involved in reaching the 300,000 year figure?
I have enough experiences that God has been in my life that is evidence enough for me. If I told you some of those many experiences, you would not believe them so I won't waste my time. So it's evidence enough for you, but you know it's not enough for anyone else or you'd be telling everyone about it. Doesn't really sound like evidence, does it?
Percy writes:
But they have been named. What does naming things we don't know prove? We've never known everything and never will. What does reminding us of that prove?
Percy writes: ICANT in Message 46 writes: There is nothing known about the first 300,000 years. There is a lot of speculation but that is all that it is. Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove? It would prove that there are millions of young people that have been indoctrinated in your unreligious society in the last 63 years because they believed they were being taught the truth, because they were not told that everything they were being taught was based on assumptions. It was taught as a fact. You left out that I was responding about "the first 300,000 years," not about everything. I added it back in to restore context. Your dishonesty is kind of off-putting but very consistent. The religious have demonstrated many times here over the years that this is the kind of behavior to be expected of them. Unable to use honest means to defend their faith they resort to dishonest ones. I was asking what it would prove should the 300,000 years be one of those things we don't know. Why don't you try answering the question actually asked for change. If you try honesty you might be surprised to discover how much better you feel when you're not hunkering down in your religious faith blindly repeating misguided and long ago dispatched arguments.
Percy writes: But the side comment I made in passing is not the thread's topic, which is whether people should be pushing their religious views into the public sphere. What is the difference between pushing religious views and you pushing your unreligious views on the public? The secular is the public domain. Religious views are private. Let's quote Madison for you again:
Madison in A Memorial and Remonstrance: In case you find the references obscure and the language opaque, he's saying that a free government requires that government and religion ("each department") be separate. This is to the benefit of us all. While you no doubt would feel very comfortable with Christians controlling the reins of government, if it were legal for Christians to control government then it would also be legal for Muslims to control government. They could outlaw Christianity and require you to purchase a prayer rug and pray towards Mecca five times daily. It's not a good idea for religions to control government. So we require separation of church and state in our country so that no one is subject to the authority of another religion. That's the definition of a secular state, which we are. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22930 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
ICANT in Message 53 writes: Well since the earth is only 4 billion years old and the production of Bio Mass to produce 3.5 trillion barrels of oil would take a pretty big spell. Then you have to cover it up with up to 5 miles deep of soil and rock which would take a super big spell. Since you're math challenged, sedimentation 5 miles deep laid down over 4 billion years would be 0.00008 inches per year. Miniscule. 3.5 trillion barrels of oil in 4 billion years would be 875 barrels per year. Since the surface area of the world, including oceans, is about 200 million square miles, that would be 0.000005 barrels of oil per square mile per year. Again, miniscule. Of course that's not the way it really happened. There was no continuous sedimentation for 4 billion years. There were episodes of uplift and subsidence, of sedimentation and erosion, all about the world in an unending sequence. A quick search reveals that misinformation similar to what you posted is plastered all over the Internet. Which website did you use? About space dust, it is estimated that 40,000 tons of space dust falls to Earth every year. That is 0.0000000000000006% of the earth's mass. Negligible. Considering it over the Earth's entire history, that much dust falling every year for 4.56 billion years would be .000003% of the earth's mass. Again, negligible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2338 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
again you still haven't answered why an astrophysics theory would need to explain a geological phenomenon. I realize that you are, to put it in layman's terms, a fucking moron, but c'mon this is the third time I've asked.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
It’s because he assumes that accretion is the only process that deposits material anywhere on Earth. Apparently it’s OK for ICANT to pass his assumptions off as facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Paul,
PaulK writes:
It’s because he assumes that accretion is the only process that deposits material anywhere on Earth. Apparently it’s OK for ICANT to pass his assumptions off as facts. There you go making assumptions about what I believe. If you want to know what I believe just ask me. I believe floods can make changes to the landscape. But not to the extent YEC's do. Maybe you think they could. I do not make any assumption to that affect.So I will ask, do you think floods can make the changes YEC's put forth. I also believe volcanos can change the landscape in their vicinity. I also believe that earthquakes can change the landscape where they happen. But not one of them can add volume to the earths surface. Volume has to be added from an outside source unless it can be manufactured. The entire earth was built by accretion. It was formed from material that was flying around in space. Now if I am wrong please correct me. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 277 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Jackass,
so called drjones writes: again you still haven't answered why an astrophysics theory would need to explain a geological phenomenon. How would a Geologist know how the bio mass got covered with a pile of rock and dirt that was 5 miles thick or any other depth to produce the 1500 to 2200 psi it is under? Keep a civil tone in your replies to me and I will do the same for you. God Bless DrJones,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024