Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Catastic82]

If you have any proof it does change then provide it. as usual its all the "oh ÿou don't know this could happen you don't know" by that logic you could be raped by dragon on your way to work on monday, after all can you prove that dragons don't magically pop in and out of existence and rape people?

Well that explains Mary's pregnancy now

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Well that explains Mary's pregnancy now

the funny part is any Devout Christian who's daughter came home and said she'd been shagged by god they'd probably call her a laying blaspheming ****.
Ask a Devout Muslim if their son came home after being in cave with no food or water for 3 days claiming god spoke to him they'd rush him to the hospital to check for brain damage then call him a lying blaspheming campaigner.
Ask any Jew if their son came home claiming to be the messiah they would take him for a psychological assessment before calling him a lying blaspheming campaigner.

their biggest sceptics would be the very people that believe these things are possible.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Firstly, most people on this forum probably don't even know who Joe Pesci is.
Secondly, just because you do not believe in Jesus, don't you think it is the wrong thread to come on and say what you did!

It seems some don't even know who George Carlin is.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

No change occurs except that there is a creator for that change. It is not the case that God created the Earth, but did not create the changes that occurs to it. God created the Earth and owns it, what is in it as well as the changes that occur in it. This also goes for the entire Universe

God created the whole universe, but only put people on Earth.

What a waste.

That's like building the eureka tower for an ant.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

God created the whole universe, but only put people on Earth.

What a waste.

That's like building the eureka tower for an ant.

Fortunately, other life including intelligent life is predicted to be pretty common in the milky way. So, if there is a God, he might be a bit less twisted than that.

The existence of other life in the universe also means that there is a slightly higher chance of expires being raped by a dragon on the way to work on Monday than we previously thought.

 

[expires]

and Aristotle's models were not based on controlled experiments he was a great thinker but was not scientific in his approach.
what you fail to grasp here is that the physics behind the laws doesn't change. the current understanding is incomplete which is why we continue to expand upon them with new laws that define things that the original ones did not fully explore. we don't look at thermal dynamics and say well the conservation of energy is wrong, its not wrong it describes what occurs from certain observations. we now know more due to nuclear physics that matter and energy are interchangeable. knowing this newtons ideas were expanded on, not discarded.

even newtons laws of motion for example accepted approximations for what occurs is it exacting? full explanation? of course not. we are still learning.

If your trying to suggesting an object in motion will sudden stop without any outside force acting upon it. go, prove it collect, your noble prize. of course i wont hold my breath.

how understanding adapts that understanding we apply to the laws of physics our description of these laws themselves how it all works adapts as we learn more, but the underlying physics its does not change.

If you have any proof it does change then provide it. as usual its all the "oh ÿou don't know this could happen you don't know" by that logic you could be raped by dragon on your way to work on monday, after all can you prove that dragons don't magically pop in and out of existence and rape people?

No. Not sure why you would think that was being suggested.

Why do you think a body, once in motion, continues with that motion (except for external influence)?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

No. Not sure why you would think that was being suggested.

Why do you think a body, once in motion, continues with that motion (except for external influence)?

Look at inertia and conservation of momentum.

Obviously, part of a body in motion can stop without "external influence" by the body splitting or emitting part of itself, otherwise we'd have trouble stopping the shuttles at the space station, etc.

At the same time, a better question might be "stop relative to what?"

 

[expires]

Look at inertia and conservation of momentum.

Obviously, part of a body in motion can stop without "external influence" by the body splitting or emitting part of itself, otherwise we'd have trouble stopping the shuttles at the space station, etc.

At the same time, a better question might be "stop relative to what?"

Mr or Mrs funny name, your answer to why the motion of a body continues is inertia. Or is momentum? You didn't make it clear which.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Mr or Mrs funny name, your answer to why the motion of a body continues is inertia. Or is momentum? You didn't make it clear which.

Inertia is Newton's first law of motion. It basically says that objects don't change velocity (i.e. speed or direction) unless a force acts on them. It's more or less common sense. If I throw a ball at you it isn't going to stop midair without being stopped by something, i.e. the wind, someone's hand, air resistance, etc.

Momentum of an object is its mass times its velocity. Conservation of momentum means momentum is conserved when objects interact, i.e. the sum of the momentum for all objects in a closed system does not change, even when an interaction occurs. For example, if an object splits in half like I said in my last post the sum of the momentums of each part will be the same as the momentum of the original object. Another way to look at this is an object must transfer momentum onto something else to change it's speed or direction of motion, i.e. impart a force onto the something else.

Either way you get the idea: Forces make things change their motion, no force and the motion doesn't change.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

No. Not sure why you would think that was being suggested.

Why do you think a body, once in motion, continues with that motion (except for external influence)?

its literally the first law of motion an unbalanced force is the only thing that will cancel out movement.

space shuttles that ming was talking about they still need an external force to stop and change direction they use on board Systems to generate it but it is still an external force.

when thrusters are used to turn and stop on a space craft what actually happens is the ship react's the recoil generated by the thrusters this is the "outside force" the ship would never stop on its own, force must be imparted on to it.

without activating a thruster that ship continues on until something stops it. in this case gravity would eventually win out the ships orbit would deteriorate and start heading back towards earth.

again the ship is in motion it will only stop when another force makes it. it's not going to stop 3 feet above your house all on its own.

 

[expires]

Inertia is Newton's first law of motion. It basically says that objects don't change velocity (i.e. speed or direction) unless a force acts on them. It's more or less common sense. If I throw a ball at you it isn't going to stop midair without being stopped by something, i.e. the wind, someone's hand, air resistance, etc.

Momentum of an object is its mass times its velocity. Conservation of momentum means momentum is conserved when objects interact, i.e. the sum of the momentum for all objects in a closed system does not change, even when an interaction occurs. For example, if an object splits in half like I said in my last post the sum of the momentums of each part will be the same as the momentum of the original object. Another way to look at this is an object must transfer momentum onto something else to change it's speed or direction of motion, i.e. impart a force onto the something else.

Either way you get the idea: Forces make things change their motion, no force and the motion doesn't change.

Do you see your last words as the basis of a unique law of motion? It is just the law of conservation of momentum or Sir Isaac's second law. There is no indication in Sir Isaac's second law that momentum changes without account.

In principia Sir Isaac first rule of reasoning is

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Uniform motion is sufficiently explained by Sir Isaac's second law in the absence of an unbalance force.

Don't you think Sir Isaac's first law was a bit of an over reaction by Galileo to Aristotle's idea of force being necessary for motion to persist.

There is not a motion that requires Sir Isaac's first law for its explanation. Or if there is, can you name one?

I do agree that Sir Isaac's first law is a common sense statement. But there is no reason that I can see for it to be declared a unique law of motion.

Just say you were Sir Isaac and you were proposing his first law, what reason would you give for it being a law?

its literally the first law of motion an unbalanced force is the only thing that will cancel out movement.

space shuttles that ming was talking about they still need an external force to stop and change direction they use on board Systems to generate it but it is still an external force.

when thrusters are used to turn and stop on a space craft what actually happens is the ship react's the recoil generated by the thrusters this is the "outside force" the ship would never stop on its own, force must be imparted on to it.

without activating a thruster that ship continues on until something stops it. in this case gravity would eventually win out the ships orbit would deteriorate and start heading back towards earth.

again the ship is in motion it will only stop when another force makes it. it's not going to stop 3 feet above your house all on its own.

All perfectly reasonable but what does Sir Isaac first law have to do with ming's spaceship. Sir Isaac's second and third laws perfectly explain its momentum and change thereof.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I do agree that Sir Isaac's first law is a common sense statement. But there is no reason that I can see for it to be declared a unique law of motion.

Just say you were Sir Isaac and you were proposing his first law, what reason would you give for it being a law?

One reason is to define inertial reference frames. For example, if you were on a closed train that moved smoothly at a constant velocity, you would feel like you were just standing stationary on the ground and would feel no force that signified you were moving. You could jump up and down and it would feel identical to being stationary on the ground. It's an important thing to identify because everything is moving relative to something.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

And if you take that one step further and say reality is normal in each of these reference frames and they actually are the same like Einstein did you get special relativity. And as much as people say relativity is strange, it seems pretty sensible seeing we are travelling at some insane velocity relative the the centre of the galaxy or the sun even when we are standing still, so why should traveling relative to our idea of standing still make any difference.

 

[pokerspiv]

But miracles defy nature, so would differ from what is normally observed with scientists. Hence, science can explain what normally occurs, but cannot explain the occurrence of what normally does not. An example would be the flowing of water from between the fingers of the Prophet that was observed over a thousand years ago. This occurrence cannot be explained by science because it is not something that would normally occur.

Sure it can be explained by science:

A human person made it up.

 

[pokerspiv]

Tichmond Rigers - You say that a creation without a creator makes no sense, but as a ''science student'' you should know much of science defies common sense. Quantam mechanics fails the common sense case spectaculary.

As for Jesus been a made up figure, it's too much of a stretch. How does a movement start without someone to inspire it?

Christianity the movement wasn't actually started by Jesus. It was started by Saint Paul. So he could have just invented the character of Jesus. But the evidence that Jesus actually existed is pretty strong.

 

[pokerspiv]

Ok, so Did god create the 'Earth' in its present form? Is it absurd at all to suggest that god didn't create the earth? There is a very plausible theory on the creation of the earth and likewise for every other planet. So god or a god or gods may have given rise to the creation of the earth over an extended period of time, but didn't directly create earth.

Most intellectually aware Christians will now just claim that god created the universe. Argument from first cause.

 

[expires]

One reason is to define inertial reference frames. For example, if you were on a closed train that moved smoothly at a constant velocity, you would feel like you were just standing stationary on the ground and would feel no force that signified you were moving. You could jump up and down and it would feel identical to being stationary on the ground. It's an important thing to identify because everything is moving relative to something.

That's just an academic gimmick though. Absolute motion may or may not be unknowable, but whatever the real momentum of a particle, it has no dependency on the momentum of another particle. When you talk 'inertial' reference frames, there is a tendency to eliminate a particular motion and make it fixed and then consider other motions relative to this contrived (false) situation. Which is obviously problematic when it comes to truthful science.

Both Ptolemy and Aristarchus were doing this. Ptolemy with his fixed earth and need for epicycles of other planets. Copernicus followed Aristarchus all those centuries later with the idea of the sun being fixed somewhere near the centre of the universe.

Then Galileo and Sir Isaac stepped into Copernicus's mistake and invented an explanation of the why the planets orbit a fixed sun. This explanation required an allowance of where the planets would travel if the sun had no gravity. Which was the equivalent of Ptolemy's epicycles. The sun's gravity is always there.

In your example, Sir Isaac/Mningasimisonda, you begin with a mistaken premise that you admit your self. The train will not have been moving at constant velocity. One of the troubles I have with Sir Isaac's first law is it has never been tested. Who has ever observed uniform motion? It is so academic it is close to ridiculous. To be tested you would have to find somewhere in the universe where there was a complete absence of gravity. And then (the first part of the law) could be observed to be right or wrong. Until someone observes uniform motion, Sir Isaac's first law is nothing more than a curious theory.

But basically a law of physics requires an explanation of how various quantities interact. Your first law fails at this bottom level.

And if you take that one step further and say reality is normal in each of these reference frames and they actually are the same like Einstein did you get special relativity. And as much as people say relativity is strange, it seems pretty sensible seeing we are travelling at some insane velocity relative the the centre of the galaxy or the sun even when we are standing still, so why should traveling relative to our idea of standing still make any difference?

Angles. If you take the motion of gravity fields into account, as neither Sir Isaac or Mr Einstein did, the angle between motion relative to a gravity field and gravity its self is not as we have in the school books.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

You've identified a few problems which Einstein solved by saying that what matters is the reference frame of the person or thing that is observing what is happening and light speed is the same for all observers, so you don't get strange effects like light moving slower in your reference frame and making things that are stationary relative to you look weird because you are moving relative to something else.

In terms of acceleration, if the net force on you is zero you are not being accelerated (Newton's second law). On Earth gravity is balanced by the force from the ground, so if you are stationary or moving at a constant velocity relative to the ground along the ground you can assume you will have zero net force on you. And if you want to take the whole universe into account while doing it, notice that all the other things on Earth around you would have the same forces on them from beyond Earth, so would be accelerated with you and the effect of this acceleration would be unnoticeable.

So even driving at a contast velocity on a flat road in your car is a pretty good approximation of uniform motion. If your car isn't moving anywhere vertically then gravity on you is irrelevant. It's balanced with the force from your seat.

If you are speeding up or slowing down, you'll feel different forces to when your car is stationary. If you are at a constant speed the forces will feel the same, except maybe vibrations and sound from the engine.

If you have problems with those vibrations or sound making it not perfect enough for you to conclude anything, go ride on a magnetic lift train in a straight line at a constant speed.

On the gravity fields part, Newton considered gravity to be a force of attraction caused by matter. Einstein considered gravity to be a bending of space-time by matter. Either way it's accurate enough to assume that the net force from gravity on the surface of the Earth acts downward.

 

[HARKER]

Ok, so Did god create the 'Earth' in its present form? Is it absurd at all to suggest that god didn't create the earth? There is a very plausible theory on the creation of the earth and likewise for every other planet. So god or a god or gods may have given rise to the creation of the earth over an extended period of time, but didn't directly create earth.

Yeah.............but most likely nah...............or at least the god we've been raised up on a diet of.

The balance of true belief (not forced belief) is diminishing at quite a rate and once we've given up our childish wishes of an almighty creator and a heaven to complete our life, we can spend more time with science and less with myth.

I find it staggering that people can truly believe (wish to believe) in something that likely goes against every instinct in their bodies.......and I'm catholic.

 

[HARKER]

Most intellectually aware Christians will now just claim that god created the universe. Argument from first cause.

Most intellectually aware Christians are in conflict with self...........or at least the ones I know that can debate the topic.

The tables have turned and when the shoe is on the other foot for believers to stake their claim without terms, Belief....Faith....Hope....even their arguments come to naught.
Even had a discussion with a priest some years back who openly admitted that he doesn't really believe any more......he tried....he wanted to....but the truth just got the better of him as it will most of us eventually.

When the numbers are stacked too heavily with science, no one will want to fly the creationist flag any more.....It's not too far away

 

[LanceRomance]

Most intellectually aware Christians are in conflict with self...........or at least the ones I know that can debate the topic.

The tables have turned and when the shoe is on the other foot for believers to stake their claim without terms, Belief....Faith....Hope....even their arguments come to naught.
Even had a discussion with a priest some years back who openly admitted that he doesn't really believe any more......he tried....he wanted to....but the truth just got the better of him as it will most of us eventually.

When the numbers are stacked too heavily with science, no one will want to fly the creationist flag any more.....It's not too far away

I think most intellectually aware practicing christians turn up on the weekend for the community aspect... imo

 

[HARKER]

I think most intellectually aware practicing christians turn up on the weekend for the community aspect... imo

Some do, some have to and some just want to play the percentages.

Is it odd that in most cases the freer the country, the less people rely on religion as a crutch?
Is it any surprise that countries that don't condone apostasy that the rate of belief sits at close to 100%? I think not.

What a world we have when we want to squash free thinking and even without religion, they're onto plan B anyway.

 

[expires]

1/ You've identified a few problems which Einstein solved by saying that what matters is the reference frame of the person or thing that is observing what is happening and light speed is the same for all observers, so you don't get strange effects like light moving slower in your reference frame and making things that are stationary relative to you look weird because you are moving relative to something else.

2/In terms of acceleration, if the net force on you is zero you are not being accelerated (Newton's second law). On Earth gravity is balanced by the force from the ground, so if you are stationary or moving at a constant velocity relative to the ground along the ground you can assume you will have zero net force on you. And if you want to take the whole universe into account while doing it, notice that all the other things on Earth around you would have the same forces on them from beyond Earth, so would be accelerated with you and the effect of this acceleration would be unnoticeable.

So even driving at a contast velocity on a flat road in your car is a pretty good approximation of uniform motion. If your car isn't moving anywhere vertically then gravity on you is irrelevant. It's balanced with the force from your seat.

If you are speeding up or slowing down, you'll feel different forces to when your car is stationary. If you are at a constant speed the forces will feel the same, except maybe vibrations and sound from the engine.

If you have problems with those vibrations or sound making it not perfect enough for you to conclude anything, go ride on a magnetic lift train in a straight line at a constant speed.

On the gravity fields part, Newton considered gravity to be a force of attraction caused by matter. Einstein considered gravity to be a bending of space-time by matter. Either way it's accurate enough to assume that the net force from gravity on the surface of the Earth acts downward.

1/Einstein solved nothing. All he did was contradict himself. Absolute motion can't be known was his premise. Therefore by giving a particular reference frame absolute virtue, we can understand all else was what he said. Bringing in the speed of light doesn't suddenly make all that sensible.

2/ Don't like the way you have the ground being an upward force so I'll leave off there. But basically Sir Isaac's first law is supposed to be about absolute uniform motion. Remember his fictitious cannon ball that would travel in a straight line forever with unchanging motion until gravity was brought into his picture? Whilst you are alluding to approximations of uniform motion, you aren't dealing with Sir Isaac's first law.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think most intellectually aware practicing christians turn up on the weekend for the community aspect... imo

Community used to be what the church was about and the bible acted more as teachings that each person should know. However, they seem to have got scared by the decreasing attendance or reacted to science becoming more popular and have become more hardcore preachy and religious.

Some love it and deny all else to fulfill it, but for many i think it makes churches more of an uncomfortable place where they feel conflicted rather than bringing the community together like churches used to.

 

[LanceRomance]

Community used to be what the church was about and the bible acted more as teachings that each person should know. However, they seem to have got scared by the decreasing attendance or reacted to science becoming more popular and have become more hardcore preachy and religious.

Some love it and deny all else to fulfill it, but for many i think it makes churches more of an uncomfortable place where they feel conflicted rather than bringing the community together like churches used to.

From my understanding of what is going on in my Mum's church it is all love and peace and multiculturalism. (catholic church in Melbourne)

Same with my Aunty's church in Brisbane.

SHTF when my nanna became a Jehovas witness for a few years and she started telling me I was going to hell (when I was 8). Fortunately, she was only a part of them for a few years.