Atheist vs Theist

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by DennisTate, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Still dodging, I see. Your regurgitation of the mainstream propaganda model was spot on. You just need to actually open your mind now and ask yourself the questions I've asked you...
    Here's one more. How can the universe still be expanding everywhere if all masses are attracted to one another's so-called "center of gravity"? Doesn't it all leave you feeling like there's some giant elephant missing from the room?

    In other words, are you open minded enough to actually consider a different model that may be simpler, results in much the same mathematical relations, and easily explains stuff like why the universe appears to still be expanding everywhere?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2017
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excellent question.

    As a scientific amateur I try to come up with my own answers to some of the questions. Not that they are necessarily valid but they are interesting mental exercises. For instance why does a T. Rex have such short forearms armed with sharp claws? Consider that the T. Rex has a mouth full of rows of what resemble steak knives and it uses those to not only kill prey but to eat it as well. Now plunging rows of serrated knives into another dinosaur it is going to encounter tough hide, sinews and bones. Those are all going to be caught between the blades and could cause serious tooth decay. So after a meal the T. Rex could bend it's head down onto it's chest and there on each side of it's jaw would be a set of toothpicks perfectly designed to remove excess flesh, hide, sinew and bone that was stuck between those razor sharp teeth.

    But I digress!

    Back to the expanding universe defying the laws of gravity. Some scientist explained that expansion by imagining that the stars and galaxies were painted on the surface of a balloon. Then as the balloon was filled with hot air the stars and galaxies would all move away from each other as the surface expands. That got me to thinking about the missing 96% of the universe and the concept of dark matter. If that missing 96% were dark matter and it was such that we are surrounded by it but cannot perceive it in much the same way as we are surrounded by air but we only become aware of it when it is hotter, colder or blowing. So if dark matter is similar to an invisible gas filling the universe then what happens when dark matter is heated by the trillions of stars in the universe? Would it expand and effectively push against the force of gravity causing the universe to expand? What will happen when the stars die out and the dark matter cools down again? Will the universe contract under gravity back into a singularity? Are we living in a cyclical universe of expansion and contraction on a scale so vast in time that we are merely observing one tiny part of the process?

    Yes, all of the above is pure speculation on my part as an amateur. I try to fit the meager knowledge that I have into a model that makes sense to me. I don't have enough scientific education to test my model so I am open to new information and ideas because to me, knowledge is growth.
     
    Mr_Truth and Grumblenuts like this.
  3. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    See, now you're thinkin'!

    Don't beat yourself up for it! "Yes, all of the above is pure speculation on my part as an amateur." No, it isn't. You're just granting yourself permission to think outside the box a bit is all. That's a good thing. And. apparently you don't realize it, but none of that "pure speculation" is really new or novel. It's not just "on your part," but you're clearly trying like hell. You certainly didn't think up "dark matter" for example, but consider what came long before. Did you know that even Einstein believed there was Aether? Everyone did back then. Hopefully, you'll find this this hilarious and ironic:
    So what we call "Dark matter" and "Dark energy" now, everyone just called "Aether" or "The Aether" little more than 100 years ago. All forgotten. Deliberately? If "space" were simply an empty "void" or true "vacuum" how would light travel through it? The theoretical "wave" portion would obviously require a medium through which to propagate and the theoretical "particle" part could only coast through after being somehow accelerated to its maximum velocity prior to entrance. Newton had it largely figured out before even "explaining" gravity. The Aether was the explanation to begin with. Newton just never put it all together. Then Einstein happened, unfortunately, who also took The Aether for granted, by the way. At least until he left the rails completely and cooked up his "curved space" nonsense - your balloon model. Did you know that Newton never declared any of his theories or axioms "Laws of Motion" or any such equivalent nonsense? He was an actual scientist after all. Lol
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  4. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If energy were actually equivalent to mass in some fashion, then neither mass nor light could exist in a true vacuum or "void." By definition. Nature truly does abhor a vacuum. So much so that none actually exists, far as we can tell anyway. Maybe one's existence caused the big bang long ago, who knows? But what "space" clearly is is Aether.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for that link. I wasn't aware of it. What Newton was calling Aether is now known as electro-magnetism but the concept that it coelesces around heavier objects fits.

    We agree on the problem of how light travels through the "vacuum" of space. Something is missing and hence my "speculations" to see if I can make sense of it myself. Obviously I am not the first to do so. ;)

    We only understand what we currently know. For myself I wonder what we would see of we traveled to the edge of the visible universe and looked outwards away from the direction we had come as to what we would see? I suspect that it would be just another vista of the Universe that exists beyond the "light horizon". The Cosmic Background Radiation might be little more than something similar to the corona of light we see of a city just over the horizon before we reach it. It is the endless stars and galaxies that exist beyond our ken.

    The universe is far stranger than we can imagine and yet, we ourselves, are part of this strange universe. We are made of it's most common elements. How many other sentient intelligences exist that also stare up at the stars and wonder if we exist?
     
    Mr_Truth and Grumblenuts like this.
  6. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nonsense, but go ahead, let's just "see if" you "can make sense of it" yourself... I'm all ears. You might just be "the first to do so. ;)"
    No, as I've suggested previously, "we," or folks like Tesla anyway, understood far more about what drives our physical reality over a hundred years ago. "We" have been deceiving ourselves with a lot of help from "power"ful interests protecting their power related monopolies and investments in the wasteful status quo, just as Tesla was by Edison and Westinghouse back then. Only he knew it. "We" haven't a clue, collectively speaking.
    That's cool. I'll tell ya what I think we'd see and my thoughts on "Cosmic Background Radiation" perhaps later.
    Yeah, that sort of thing always sounds super! Were you aware that when you figure out the acceleration required for a spaceship to get to the next star system in a typical lifetime, the G forces alone would crush any human being instantly to death? Sobering thought, eh?
     
  7. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our current technology is woefully inadequate to reach the stars. Then again our technology was marginal when Columbus tried to find an alternative route to India via the Atlantic. That journey took him 10 weeks. Nowadays it takes about 6 hours. That is 1/280th of the original travel time. Yes, we will need to have some means to counteract the gravitational forces but mankind is nothing if not ingenious.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  8. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Never said we weren't, but we sure ain't gettin' there using our current notions of physics.

     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
  9. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Seriously, ha ha!
    Right, however... consider this. First, this "mankind" has now placed itself squarely at the mercy of a relative handful of super wealthy lunatics. Madmen and women with zero reason to change much of anything at all. They already own more than they could imagine pissing away in a thousand previous lifetimes, yet still just seek more. Their agenda is obviously just to protect what they have already and continue finding clever ways to grab up the tiny fraction the rest of us have left. Not a very promising start. Add that we are clearly late and still largely screwing around in terms of taking global warming seriously. So our species may not last much longer in any case. Now, with that rosy prologue out of the way, consider this:

    Pretty sure you said something earlier about the odds of finding human or intelligent life on planets in other star systems or something and that's how we sort of arrived here. So let's presume they do exist for a second and therefore credit them also with being "ingenious" so being capable of finding "some means to counteract the gravitational forces." Only, say they already have. I mean if we can do it, they certainly may have already, right? Cue sound effects from the Twilight Zone... Got it? So if they already have it and can therefore already bop around the universe virtually at will...? That means they likely already visit us on a regular basis, yet somehow at least 99.99% of us fail to notice. And the say .01% who've claimed to notice have yet to provide any genuinely compelling evidence.

    Therefore, I'd say the odds don't look good at all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh, and there's another huge problem, of course. According to our current understanding of physics, finding "some means to counteract the gravitational forces" doesn't actually solve the problem of being instantly crushed by the G forces required to reach even our closest neighboring star in a lifetime. That is a function of "inertia", not "gravity".
     
  11. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    All that said, I still do believe we possess the potential to achieve these things. Virtually instant "travel" through "space" for example. But, it would require a large percentage of us quickly extracting our collective heads from our collective asses, and I see little sign of that happening anywhere soon enough.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alas I am also an amateur historian because it was one of favorite subjects in school. I had a great teacher who got me interested in it since it was a relatively small class. You are right about the massive wealth gap and it has happened in the past with pretty much predictable outcomes in each instance. The French and Russian revolutions and the Arab Spring were all preceded by similar wealth gaps and the ruling 1% ignoring the plight of the masses at their peril. Not every scenario if identical and the Arab Spring is the first to have occurred through the influence of the internet. The backlash that occurred when the GOP attempted to take away ObamaCare was symptomatic that We the People are not willing to tolerate a great deal more of this abuse. Watch what happens when the GOP wants to further enrich the 1% via "tax reform".
    Big difference between life and intelligent life existing on other planets. Personally I am of the opinion that life is probably way more common that not. Intelligent life, given the history of the earth, is far less likely and therefore is going to be much less common. Yes, what intelligent life exists out there is probably equally ingenious. But that does not mean that they have approached the problem in a similar manner to ours. Let us take the example of the star with 7 earth like planets. If Venus and Mars were earthlike then the odds are we would have had private enterprise figuring out ways to colonize them by now because journeys of a couple of months are feasible and achievable with our current level of technology. An intelligent species with those neighbors is far more likely to have developed intra solar system travel and would therefore be better equipped to figure out some kind of interstellar means of travel than we are.

    As far as the allegation that we have been visited by aliens goes that fits into the same category as those who see ghosts IMO. As my doctor puts it she will believe them after she has given them a full physical and they have passed a complete battery of neurological scans. The reason I don't believe that aliens have visited the earth is because it is only in the last couple of decades that we have begun to advertise our presence in a detectable manner. The nuclear tests could have set off alarm bells that there was a sentient species who had figured out how to blow themselves up. The smart move would be to send a stealth probe to gather information without revealing or exposing themselves. Since we don't know how far away the nearest intelligent life is from us and how long their probe would take to reach us my guess is that we still have a couple of centuries yet to go and by then the probe could find a planet barren of all life.

    We are a bigger danger to ourselves than we are from anything out there in the universe.
     
    Mr_Truth and Grumblenuts like this.
  13. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I notice you had no comment about this:
    And I don't really blame you. It's very weird. I mean, just because my instinct would have been to say "inertial forces" doesn't actually make your choice of "gravitational forces" necessarily poor or incorrect. The language really is a mess when it comes to discerning the difference. I mean the "G" in "G force" obviously stands for gravity. However it is entirely an expression of inertia not gravity. A function of mass not weight. Clearly. But glancing at online definitions..? OMG, what a convoluted mess!
    Googling "G forces" for example, immediately yields (for me anyway):
    Notice, zero mention of either inertia or mass. Crazy! What is inertia then, you may well ask?
    Holy crap on a taco, batman. That's right! I'd completely forgotten how incredibly stupid and incompetent the available language really is. How about mass then?
    Here Google, again for me anyway, defaults to Wikipedia:
    Fascinating. Notice, no mention here of inertia or weight. We (well, maybe it's just me) could seemingly go roundy round with this all day... week.. year?
     
  14. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Finally, perhaps, one happens to stumble upon:
    OMG, that actually makes sense! How dare they?!
    Lol
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What is inertia again? Oh, that's right, it's just some weird "tendency", "a property" - AAAAAAAAHHH!
     
  16. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Okay, let's try...
    Oh my. Again, how dare they make so much sense? Sure sounds like what might actually crush some poor sap trying to get to the nearest star in their lifetime. Notice, no mention of gravity or weight necessary? Not even acceleration necessarily!

    I submit that this "resistive force" is actually inertia. Adding "force" to "inertial" is really just being redundant. F = ma = bugsplat = us, if we ever suddenly stop "revolving at" so many million miles an hour in whatever direction, relative to any given mass, planet, star, solar system, or galactic "center of gravity."

    Actually, any drastic change in speed, velocity, or acceleration could kill a person - even if from one's own frame of reference they're standing perfectly still.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Last word on this, promise! ;)
    Utter nonsense. I'd say mass is actually the density or compactness of a discernible substance, body, or "mass"... with respect to the Aether in it's most homogeneous state and its volume. Gravity is also a function of The Aether pushing things together rather than them being mysteriously attracted to one another. And I take little to zero personal credit for any of these notions. I stand on the shoulders of living and deceased geniuses (iow, largely fruit cakes, lol).
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have to agree that the definitions do need clarity but that is the nature of the language we use. It is imprecise especially when compared to the precision of math, which is the "language of the universe".

    A great many of the terms we use to describe measurements are based on things that are far from being uniform. For instance a foot has been standardised to twelve inches but it used to just be the size of your foot so did that mean that people with bigger feet got more than people with smaller feet? :lol:

    The measurement of gravity as G is inconsistent since it varies depending on where you are on the planet. It is lower at the equator and higher at the poles. Considering that the acceleration of a falling object is 32 ft per second per second and that gravity is inconsistent, the length of a foot is arbitrary and a second is based upon the rotation of the earth that is actually slowing how accurate will the measure actually be?

    Yes, we do need to clean up our definitions.
     
    Mr_Truth and Grumblenuts like this.
  19. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Its precision is not at all what I've been talking about, but if that's a bee in your bonnet, go for it and more power too ya!
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  20. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Couple of the nutty giants upon whose broad shoulders this piss ant rests:
    Plausible explanation of gravity formally proposed in 1690. Again by Le Sage in 1748. It's high time we all began taking it seriously... Because what actually matters is what makes sense.
     
  21. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A coherent, honest question, from one atheist to another: How do you explain miracle healings?

    Islam, yes. Muslims, no. One useful thing to learn from Christianity is how to love the sinner and hate the sin. Islam is an evil, hateful, vile ideology that needs to be stamped out from the face of the earth. Muslims are people, who may or may not allow that evil, hateful, vile ideology determine their day to day lives.

    Proof of what, exactly? You dismiss all proof offered as opinion, anyway. Only your opinion or the opinions of those who agree with you are acceptable as proof in your mind.

    Would you deny the woman dying of cancer the comfort of the thought that she will be rejoining her family in heaven, or that she will someday see her children again? Is being an atheist that important that you would deny her those comforting thoughts? I was never a proselytizer for Christianity as a Christian, but I'm even less of a proselytizer for atheism now as an atheist. I see atheism as a dead-end, an extinguished lantern when people are looking for light, a dark cave with no exit when people are looking for a way out. When people need hope, atheism has nothing to offer. When people need encouragement, atheism has nothing to say. When people need strength, atheism offers only weakness. "You're gonna die, and that's the end of it," is the message of atheism. I'm forced to agree with atheism, there is no God and when you die, that's the end of it, but I don't have to like it.
     
  22. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Atheists have the same logical paradox, though. Where did the universe come from? And where did that universe come from? If the universe came from nothing, then all our science is wrong. If the universe came from something, then where did that something come from? Einstein showed that matter and energy can be created and destroyed, or transformed from one into the other. In a nuclear reaction, matter is destroyed and energy is created. Presumably, energy can be transformed back into matter in some fashion. But then the question simply becomes, where did that energy come from? rather than, where did matter come from? Theists have a ready and simple explanation: God said, "Let there be light."

    Isaac Asimov wrote an interesting short story in which humanity and computers merged over eons until the heat death of the universe, evolving into a greater and greater being, until finally the human/computer solved the problem of how to reverse entropy, and said, "Let there be light."


    What will atheists do if no life is ever detected on any of those other planets?

    Your "scientific" opinions made my already low estimation of you go down even further. You believe in the aether and you claim to be a scientist? For shame. By the way, Newton also believed in God and the existence of the philosopher's stone. Are you going to embrace those beliefs, too? Einstein's curved fabric of space model has been proven right again and again, for example, the curvature of light around a black hole has now been observed.

    The potential energy in the balls is in their distance from the gravitational center of the earth. Remember that everything wants to reach the gravitational center, which is why stars, star systems, and galaxies revolve, or else they would crash into each other immediately. Creating a hole on a golf course doesn't increase the balls' potential energy, it just gives them a few more inches they can approach the gravitational center of the earth. And if you bounce a ball in a vacuum, it will bounce higher because there's less air resistance. As for your example of "work", Solomon had the best answer to that, "Naked a man comes from his mothers womb, and as he comes, so he departs. He takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand."

    Actually, you can't even prove that. You could be a character in a story and nothing about you or your supposed universe actually exists. You could be the figment of someone's imagination.
     
  23. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't. Haven't seen credible evidence verifying such claims. I do think some home remedies beat seeing a doctor these days though, at least in this country.
    Incorrect. What I'll accept as backup at a minimum is pertinent quotes from widely respected experts in the field with links. Results from peer reviewed studies aren't too shabby either.
    Are you nuts? No. How do you leap to such conclusions? I was thinking mainly of what my mother-in-law went through. She did this directly to her children for months on end, along with everyone else including me. My wife takes care of dying people for Christ's sake. She too is an atheist. Most people in the country are religious, ya know? Point was screaming nonsensical demands on one's death bed is expressing profound discomfort. A desperate projection of their own doubts and dwindling faith. Often reality is a bummer. No guarantees. Usually beats the alternative...
    Oh well.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2017
  24. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Like I should give a crap? I recommend you get over yourself. The sooner the better.
    I never claimed to be "a scientist" but never let facts stop you.
    Shameless is as shameless does. Between the two of us that would be you.
    No kidding.
    Because that would make you happy or what? Why ask stupid questions you already know the answer to? I know, because you're a first class ****** and can't help yourself.
    Correlation does not imply causation, Einstein.
    You're just translating the coordinates. Makes no difference.
    Nice. You've just succeeded in arguing perfectly with yourself. Why pretend to be responding to me? Look, you have your opinions. I've obviously been hearing them all my life - and still disagree. Who's position is more courageous? You don't like my opinions? Fine. Ignore them. Move along..
    How about that price of tea in China, huh! Point was you remove the air from a ball (equalize the pressure)(say a volleyball - producing an inelastic collision), not bouncing some ball in a "vacuum." Contrasted with bouncing one that's pumped way up, so it just keeps bouncing - same input "work", vastly different product.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,975
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't need to prove it to anyone, not even myself, it's self-evident. We all live in our own personal Universe regardless of what it is, even if it's computer generated for example, it is a Universe. As long as each of us is aware of our surroundings, it exists.

    It's irrelevant what attributes are given or defined/described by anyone, it is still a Universe that each of us inhabits.
     

Share This Page