davien:
Gravity is the label given to the phenomena observed....its not an entity.

Really..tell me more

And as a result of this,the so called phenomena does not exist or is not real?

sinequanon:


You are repeating yourself and confusing the problem of isolation of a system with objective vs subjective description of the system. They are two different things. QM has not discarded the assumption of objectivity at all. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Not just a matter of disagreement, but there are areas even in objectivity you don't seem to accede to.

Maamin:


Really..tell me more

And as a result of this,the so called phenomena does not exist or is not real?

It is a label describing the consequence of mass present in space which creates a force of pull(or push)....that is termed gravity.

You can demonstrate it by allowing any object with mass to free-fall.

Gravity is as much as a descriptive term the same way the label(or term) given to the act of rapid acceleration of your feet is called "running"....

So do you want to question "running" too? or ask how one can prove "running"?

Now....ditch the tap dancing...and for the third time....have you any evidence/justification for your belief in a "god"?

After reading some comments
Lawd!!!
But man,this forum is filled with really intelligent people.It reinforces my hope for Nigeria.Great Thread.

Kay17:
@italo

To be truthful, your definition of religion is too broad and broad enough to cover "centralized atheism or state atheism" however it covers ideologies. It can cover the Nazis and the Communists as well as the Democrats, Social Liberals and PDP/APC. Worse you didn't even mention the type of beliefs necessary to form a religion. And in any case, can political beliefs form religions?

In a sense, they can.

I thought you would show why Atheism cannot be considered a religion. But you didn't.

datopdlink:
After reading some comments
Lawd!!!
But man,this forum is filled with really intelligent people.It reinforces my hope for Nigeria.Great Thread.

You seem to be equating the use of big words with intelligence.

italo:


In a sense, they can.

I thought you would show why Atheism cannot be considered a religion. But you didn't.

What a magnanimous duty you place in my hands! That duty is best achieved by showing how overgeneralized your standard for religion is.

italo:
You seem to be equating the use of big words with intelligence.

Well!I don't know what you're implying,but I'm not.I wonder how you arrived at your assertions.Anyway,just for the record,I know the intelligence I see on this forum very well,and it has nothing to do with "big" words,or its use.Thank you.

davien:
It is a label describing the consequence of mass present in space which creates a force of pull(or push)....that is termed gravity.

You can demonstrate it by allowing any object with mass to free-fall.

Gravity is as much as a descriptive term the same way the label(or term) given to the act of rapid acceleration of your feet is called "running"....


So do you want to question "running" too? or ask how one can prove "running"?

Now....ditch the tap dancing...and for the third time....have you any evidence/justification for your belief in a "god"?

Trash..gravity push or pull? ..did you create any force of gravity?..even the words you are typing here you didn't create.

Why is the gravitational force of the earth pulling things to it centre why not away? Why is the universe so in order for thousands of years and will still be like that for as long as you can think..with the planet revolving in a specific pattern in their orbit?

Which one of ur scientist gimmick put this in place ?

Kay17:


What a magnanimous duty you place in my hands! That duty is best achieved by showing how overgeneralized your standard for religion is.

The English dictionaries overgeneralized, then. Not me.

datopdlink:

Well!I don't know what you're implying,but I'm not.I wonder how you arrived at your assertions.Anyway,just for the record,I know the intelligence I see on this forum very well,and it has nothing to do with "big" words,or its use.Thank you.

The keyword in my post is "seem."

Maamin:


Trash..gravity push or pull? ..did you create any force of gravity?..even the words you are typing here you didn't create.

And the point you are making is what?..

Why is the gravitational force of the earth pulling things to it centre why not away? Why is the universe so in other for thousands of years..with the planet revolving in a specific pattern in their orbit?

Actually the earth's gravity can push objects away....its rotation creates a fly-by anomaly that can give an additional velocity.

And the planets revolve the way they do because they keep to the law of conservation of momentum....they'll keep that initial velocity(u) they had at the time of their accretion.....including the heat(which is now situated at the core)..

The solar system is filled with rogue planets(planets without a sun) so counting 9 planets out of billions that keep a conservation of momentum in the solar system as a sort of aha "it's designed" is quite redundant.

Which one of ur scientist gimmick put this in place ?

No one claimed a scientist made anything natural....people do claim it being magically spoken into existence and that claim is what you've been avoiding ever since..

davien:
[s]And the point you are making is what?..
Actually the earth's gravity can push objects away....its rotation creates a fly-by anomaly that can give an additional velocity.

And the planets revolve the way they do because they keep to the law of conservation of momentum....they'll keep that initial velocity(u) they had at the time of their accretion.....including the heat(which is now situated at the core)..

The solar system is filled with rogue planets(planets without a sun) so counting 9 planets out of billions that keep a conservation of momentum in the solar system as a sort of aha "it's designed" is quite redundant. [/s]

Save those for yourself am a science student.

No one claimed a scientist made anything natural....people do claim it being magically spoken into existence and that claim is what you've been avoiding ever since..

And what are your evidence they were not magically spoken..for science to define a phenomena doesn't mean they created or found answers to it origin.

Initial velocity must have been induced by something or force capable of doing that and keeping it constant for thousands of years..how many other billions of universe has life been discovered on?..not even Andromeda the closest to Milky Way has life on it.

And you are here talking about no magical spiritual force responsible for this precious tranquillity.

italo:
The keyword in my post is "seem."

Seem=appear to be,have a semblance.You see it that way,and I don't know why.But your assumptions are yours,anyway.

Maamin:


And what are your evidence they were not magically spoken..for science to define a phenomena doesn't mean they created or found answers to it origin.

Lol.... what evidence do I have that anything wasn't magically poofed into existence?....well for one....magic has never been established to be in existence nor demonstrated to poof objects into reality.
And you are still running in circles with yourself here....no one stated he/she created any natural phenomena....we merely manipulate them to derive results that provide an understanding to them.
Take for example this analogy.... If matter can curve space to create a force of pull/push(gravity),then the light approaching objects with tremendous mass would appear curved.. do we observe lensing of light? Yes.

Initial velocity must have been induced by something or force capable of doing that and keeping it constant for thousands of years..

What happens to a spinning coke can if left spinning in a frictionless environment that has a lack of an atmosphere? ...does it conserve its momentum?
If you are indeed a "science student" you'd know the answer to that... so the primordial earth as it accreted kept to its rotation...

how many other billions of universe has life been discovered on?..not even Andromeda the closest to Milky Way has life on it.

I think you mean galaxy not universe...
And "life" as we know it has not been established to be lacking or in abundance in any galaxy.....
The only place known to harbour life is the earth...
Whether life is lacking or in abundance is a non sequitor.

And you are here talking about no magical spiritual force responsible for this precious tranquillity.

I wouldn't call the earth a precious tranquility when 2/3 of it is uninhabitable and its managed to kill 9/10 of all species... more like a plant that managed to grow within the cracks of a concrete pavement.
And at best if we are ignorant of "life"....anyone postulating "magic" would just be making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

datopdlink:

Seem=appear to be,have a semblance.You see it that way,and I don't know why.But your assumptions are yours,anyway.

It only seemed that way to me. You have corrected me.

That is enough. Sorry for telling you how it seemed to me.

Maamin:


And what are your evidence they were not magically spoken..for science to define a phenomena doesn't mean they created or found answers to it origin.

Initial velocity must have been induced by something or force capable of doing that and keeping it constant for thousands of years..how many other billions of universe has life been discovered on?..not even Andromeda the closest to Milky Way has life on it.

And you are here talking about no magical spiritual force responsible for this precious tranquillity.

No evidence!

He just believes what some other Atheist must have said.

Blind FAITH!

italo:


It only seemed that way to me. You have corrected me.

That is enough. Sorry for telling you how it seemed to me.

No problem.

datopdlink:
Sinequanon sorry,I had to modify my post...my bro Snowden told me them Nsa freaks I mentioned earlier were closing in on my location Anyway I'm sure you guessed,but anyway,I'm a D.Respect to Lord Herbert of Cherbury.

Thanks. Read up on it and clarified a few terms in my mind.

Maybe the topic will come up in another thread sometime.

italo:


No evidence!

He just believes what some other Atheist must have said.

Blind FAITH!

The same thing he accuses religious people for..smh!

italo:


No evidence!

He just believes what some other Atheist must have said.

Blind FAITH!

Are you seriously asking someone if he has evidence against the world being magically spoken into existence?

It is things like this that make people see us Christians as gullible. Why not also ask if he has evidence against witches flying in the night.


God didn't use magic. Science brings man closer to God. God uses science

davien:

Lol.... what evidence do I have that anything wasn't magically poofed into existence?....well for one....magic has never been established to be in existence nor demonstrated to poof objects into reality.
And you are still running in circles with yourself here....no one stated he/she created any natural phenomena....we merely manipulate them to derive results that provide an understanding to them.

Who created or better yet where did that natural phenomena came from that you and your cohorts manipulated..and I so much believed that you are not among the manipulators..but sheepishly accepted what they fed you too..

Take for example this analogy.... If matter can curve space to create a force of pull/push(gravity),then the light approaching objects with tremendous mass would appear curved.. do we observe lensing of light? Yes.
What happens to a spinning coke can if left spinning in a frictionless environment that has a lack of an atmosphere? ...does it conserve its momentum?

Who created the matter that can curve space that in turns create a force of pull/push gravity?..even at it(matter) lowest state where by it is perceived as thin air.

If you are indeed a "science student" you'd know the answer to that... so the primordial earth as it accreted kept to its rotation...
I think you mean galaxy not universe...
And "life" as we know it has not been established to be lacking or in abundance in any galaxy.....

You must think you are talking to a babe..the primordial earth kept to it rotation,hun! did the planets including earth, set their selves in rotation? And what exactly do you know about galaxy and universe...have you discovered any life or none in; let's even say in other planets in our Milky Way?.

The only place known to harbour life is the earth...
Whether life is lacking or in abundance is a non sequitor.
I wouldn't call the earth a precious tranquility when 2/3 of it is uninhabitable and its managed to kill 9/10 of all species... more like a plant that managed to grow within the cracks of a concrete pavement.
And at best if we are ignorant of "life"....anyone postulating "magic" would just be making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

And you know that the only planet known to harbour life is earth ..so how much of science break through was there to kick start the tiniest living organism on earth? Why is there no other intelligent life outside earth..why must earth orbital be soooo favourable? Which of you so called atheist scientists is responsible for it?

Maamin:


And you know that the only planet known to harbour life is earth ..so how much of science break through was there to kick start the tiniest living organism on earth? Why is there no other intelligent life outside earth..why must earth orbital be soooo favourable? Which of you so called atheist scientists is responsible for it?

Here is a small thought experiment.

Imagine there were no plants on Earth -- no grass, flowers or trees etc., just animals, insects and so forth, able to sustain themselves without plants.

Now, imagine that we discovered a tree on another planet. Would we recognize it as life, or just some curious statue-like protrusion?

Maamin:


And you know that the only planet known to harbour life is earth ..so how much of science break through was there to kick start the tiniest living organism on earth? Why is there no other intelligent life outside earth..why must earth orbital be soooo favourable? Which of you so called atheist scientists is responsible for it?

please structure your posts well.... to all your questions about "who created this and that"...
You have yet to prove them being "created"...hence your question does not follow..
And asking me why earths orbit is "so favourable" out of 100's of billions that aren't is like telling me I can't roll a die and get a 3 out of a trillion tries.
Asking why scientists haven't found life is irrelevant to claims of "magic"... Even if the solar system had an abundance of life...it wouldn't still mean a "magic fairy" did it.
Not being able to account for every single detail does not lead one to postulate "magic"

AllNaijaBlogger:


Are you seriously asking someone if he has evidence against the world being magically spoken into existence?

It is things like this that make people see us Christians as gullible. Why not also ask if he has evidence against witches flying in the night.


God didn't use magic. Science brings man closer to God. God uses science

It is Atheists who often ask people for proof of their claims.

If such Atheist then says "God didn't use magic..." he can be asked to prove it.

If he can't, we take it as his hypothesis, not fact.

davien:
please structure your posts well.... to all your questions about "who created this and that"...
You have yet to prove them being "created"...hence your question does not follow..
And asking me why earths orbit is "so favourable" out of 100's of billions that aren't is like telling me I can't roll a die and get a 3 out of a trillion tries.
Asking why scientists haven't found life is irrelevant to claims of "magic"... Even if the solar system had an abundance of life...it wouldn't still mean a "magic fairy" did it.
Not being able to account for every single detail does not lead one to postulate "magic"

No is not irrelevant is either you and your scientist dont know what you believe and defend vehemently or you are shying away from the truth.

sinequanon:


Here is a small thought experiment.

Imagine there were no plants on Earth -- no grass, flowers or trees etc., just animals, insects and so forth, able to sustain themselves without plants.

Now, imagine that we discovered a tree on another planet. Would we recognize it as life, or just some curious statue-like protrusion?

Have you found any curious statue anywhere in the universe other than earth? Now why is earth so special whereby other billions of galaxies are dormant in respect to living organisms? That is my point Probability fall short of that here..you and Davien better dont come back with such statistic here

Maamin:


Have you found any curious statue anywhere in the universe other than earth? Now why is earth so special whereby other billions of galaxies are dormant in respect to living organisms? That is my point Probability fall short of that here..you and Davien better dont come back with such statistic here

Another one who thinks it is about "who's side you are on".

Theists think I am an atheist.

Atheists think I am a theist.

It is neither.

It's called freedom of thought, and ability to think critically.

You missed the point of my THOUGHT experiment.

It is not about what has been discovered, but poses the question of how we would recognize lifeforms which take on a completely different form to the ones we are familiar with -- or even have no form in the conventional sense -- like a field.

sinequanon:


Here is a small thought experiment.

Imagine there were no plants on Earth -- no grass, flowers or trees etc., just animals, insects and so forth, able to sustain themselves without plants.

Now, imagine that we discovered a tree on another planet. Would we recognize it as life, or just some curious statue-like protrusion?

LOL, you're on that Joe Rogan weed. The answer is no. We wouldn't. That's why nature keeps us separated by sheer distance.

Maybe there are even galaxies where planets are individuals, but how can a species like us ever understand those kinds of things without the psychedelics?

sinequanon:


Another one who thinks it is about "who's side you are on".

Theists think I am an atheist.

Atheists think I am a theist.

It is neither.

It's called freedom of thought, and ability to think critically.

You missed the point of my THOUGHT experiment.

It is not about what has been discovered, but poses the question of how we would recognize lifeforms which take on a completely different form to the ones we are familiar with -- or even have no form in the conventional sense -- like a field.

Freedom of thought?..O dear! Am sorry to say this With all the above then you must be thoughtless..smh!

Weah96:


LOL, you're on that Joe Rogan weed. The answer is no. We wouldn't. That's what nature keeps us separated by sheer distance.

Maybe there are even galaxies where planets are individuals, but how can a species like us ever understand those kinds of things without the psychedelics?

Well... I think it is impoverished culture (like materialism) that leads to reliance on magic mushrooms just to think outside the box.

Why do people choose to confine themselves to the box, through fear, politics, hypocrisy, denial etc., only to have block-bust out from time to time, using brain poison? We are naturally well able to ask and contemplate these questions if we don't live day in day out philosophical dogma like religion (including science).

sinequanon:


Another one who thinks it is about "who's side you are on".

Theists think I am an atheist.

Atheists think I am a theist.

It is neither.

It's called freedom of thought, and ability to think critically.

You missed the point of my THOUGHT experiment.

It is not about what has been discovered, but poses the question of how we would recognize lifeforms which take on a completely different form to the ones we are familiar with -- or even have no form in the conventional sense -- like a field.

I believe the criteria for anything to be said to be living should encompass all these:
If it is metabolic.
If it is composed of individual substituents(cells) or exist as such.
If it grows.
If it responds to stimuli.
If it reproduces.
If it changes over time(evolves).
And if it can maintain a stable internal environment(homeostasis)..