The Limits of Religious Belief

Hi Percy, 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 existed
just like I believe in God by faith.God Bless,

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,

Sure he did. 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. What does naming things we don't know prove? Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove? 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

Hi Percy,
​ 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.

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. But that still does not answer my question (Message 45): 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)I'll interpret that as 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: 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:

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.

[qs=Percy, 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. But they have been named. 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. What is the difference between pushing religious views and you pushing your unreligious views on the public?

Hi Doc, 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,

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.

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: 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. In the right thread, what assumptions are involved in reaching the 300,000 year figure? 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? We've never known everything and never will. What does reminding us of that prove? 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. The secular is the public domain. Religious views are private. Let's quote Madison for you again:

Madison in A Memorial and Remonstrance:

---

The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.

---

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

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

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 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.

Hi Paul, 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,

Hi Jackass, 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,