User Tag List

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 282

Thread: Argument supporting existence of a God

  1. #46
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,770 Times in 1,297 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523681
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    anyone who understands the science even a little bit not only is going to know you're wrong but is going to sort of be laughing at you.
    Wow, everyone that understood Newtonian physics knew Einstein was wrong and laughed at him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    the speed of light as been directly measured over literally hundreds of years. It is very simply not a mere mathematical constant or theoretical construct.
    You are confused over the difference between the speed that light travels in a vacuum and the mere mathematical constant called the "speed of light" that is used in the mathematical formulas.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  2. #47
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    964
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    There is exactly zero doubt that light travels. It's speed has been DIRECTLY measured multiple times.
    Just like radiometric dating proves the age of the earth? I don't consider EM waves to be same as light other than color.

  3. #48
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SabathMoon View Post
    Just like radiometric dating proves the age of the earth? I don't consider EM waves to be same as light other than color.
    Radiometric dating now? What was OP again?

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 20th, 2019),Right Divider (February 22nd, 2019)

  5. #49
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Wow, everyone that understood Newtonian physics knew Einstein was wrong and laughed at him.
    You're comparing yourself to Einstein?

    Now, even I'm laughing at you.

    The lengths people go to in order to cling to needlessly, worthlessly incorrect notions blows my mind.

    You are confused over the difference between the speed that light travels in a vacuum and the mere mathematical constant called the "speed of light" that is used in the mathematical formulas.
    Saying it doesn't make it so.


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 20th, 2019)

  7. #50
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by SabathMoon View Post
    Just like radiometric dating proves the age of the earth?
    What?

    No one have ever used radiometric dating to get an age for the Earth - no one - ever.

    And if you really meant to draw a parallel to radiometric dating in general and meant to imply that it is pseudoscience then, while I might agree with that to a certain extent, it would still not be analogous to the way the speed of light has been physically measured. Measuring the speed of light is only difficult because it is so fast and the distances involved in measuring it are vast or else the equipment used must be very precise and sensitive. The idea, however is the exact same as that used by the speedometer in your car. Distance / time = speed. There's nothing pseudoscientific about it.

    I don't consider EM waves to be same as light other than color.
    On what basis?

    Let me guess? You need to do so in order to flippantly discount the noticeable delay in radio communications.

    Whether you consider visible light to be electromagnetic waves or not has no effect on reality. The fact is that electromagnetic waves that we can see can be and are generating by the exact same type of equipment that is used to produce everything from x-rays to AM/FM radio signals and microwaves. The primary difference is the amount of energy used and the manufacture and configuration of the emitters.

    Do you have a digital camera? There isn't a digital camera sensor in existence that cannot detect electromagnetic waves beyond the visible spectrum. They have to put IR cut filters in the cameras to make them usable for normal daylight photography. A lot of people who do astrophotography spend a lot of money having people take those filters out so that they can get better images of emission nebulae. The point being that the same sensor the detects visible light also detects non-phisible light and it does so for the same reason which has everything to do with the photoelectric effect and thus electromagnetism.

    Further, the speed of light has been physically measured using regular old, run of the mill, visible light. It travels at the exact same speed as every other sort of light.

    The bottom line is that light, whether visible or otherwise, definitely travels at a definite, detectable speed and you are flatly wrong - and for what? What benefit is there to denying well established facts? I mean, I'm all for being skeptical about things when there's good reason to be unconvinced but what in the world is there to be unconvinced about?


    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 20th, 2019),SabathMoon (February 16th, 2019)

  9. #51
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    964
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Let me guess? You need to do so in order to flippantly discount the noticeable delay in radio communications.
    No, that would still work with my beliefs. The mirror in the video could easily introduced the delay being a material object. But I did like the video.
    Last edited by SabathMoon; February 16th, 2019 at 12:45 PM.

  10. #52
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Saying it doesn't make it so.
    I think GO has a point. The mathematical relationship between energy, mass and "c" is not a perfect reflection of reality (even ignoring the approximations).

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 18th, 2019)

  12. #53
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    I think GO has a point. The mathematical relationship between energy, mass and "c" is not a perfect reflection of reality (even ignoring the approximations).
    What?

    This is just not so! What in the world are you guys talking about?

    Have you ever heard of an atomic bomb? The reason those weapons were ever even attempted is because of Einstein's theories. Last time I checked, they succeeded in making one or two of them.

    Any suggestions on how they have the faintest idea how much energy these bombs are going to produce?

    I can tell you how! They know exactly how much energy is going to be produced because of E=mc^2 and for no other reason - period.

    Are there variables in the system that might through their calculations off by some tiny percentage? Of course! We don't live in a laboratory but that doesn't mean that the formulas don't work. In fact, its when they are wildly off when we learn something. When they first tested the Castle Bravo bomb at Bikini Atol it yielded a MUCH bigger punch than they expected because they thought the Lithium 7 in their fission material would be inert. Well it wasn't and so the bomb yielded something like 15 Megatons instead of the expected 6 megatons. The point being that the 15 megatons is just what it should have yielded given the amount of material that was turned into energy based solely on E=mc^2.

    Not only that but what do you think, that it's just a happy coincidence that the measured speed of light is within the margin of error of the measuring devise(s) of what the theoretical value should be?

    Come on now! Where oh where is the profit in denying such things? If you're going to argue against something the scientific community believes why not pick something that actually has something real to debate? Why not pick something that they clearly don't have correct or at least something that it's reasonable to suggest that they don't have correct? If you're going to argue against Einstein, then argue against his definition of time. If you're going to argue against modern cosmology, then debate whether or not electricity can or cannot effect systems on astronomical scales (which most scientists deny - by the way). If you want to throw doubt on a popular scientific theory then pick on the ones that cannot be tested, like String Theory. Just, whatever you do, don't go around denying things that we absolutely know for a fact are true! The Earth is round, apples fall to the ground, the Moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun and the speed of light is precisely 299,792,458 meters per second.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  13. #54
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by SabathMoon View Post
    The mirror in the video could easily introduced the delay being a material object. But I did like the video.
    If that were the case then it wouldn't matter where you put the mirror.

    The guy doing the experiment "zeroed" out his measuring devise by placing a mirror up close to the emitter. What he actually was measuring was the difference in travel time between the zeroing mirror position and the position of the mirror across the room. If it was the mirror causing the effect, the difference would be zero.

    The difference wasn't zero. In fact, it just happened, by total luck and happenstance I'm sure, to be just exactly what it should have been according to, not only the theoretical value of c but also the value of c measured in countless other ways by hundreds of other people over decades of time.

    Clete

    P.S. I do want to add that you're objection here was actually scientifically minded and you should be commended for at least that much. Looking for potential points of error or searching for alternative causes for the observed effect is a totally legitimate and scientific thing to do. But so is allowing your mind to be persuaded that a notion you've held to is, in fact, wrong. Don't be afraid of reality. No true worldview is ever in conflict with it.
    Last edited by Clete; February 18th, 2019 at 07:37 AM.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. #55
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    What?

    This is just not so! What in the world are you guys talking about?

    Have you ever heard of an atomic bomb? The reason those weapons were ever even attempted is because of Einstein's theories. Last time I checked, they succeeded in making one or two of them.

    Any suggestions on how they have the faintest idea how much energy these bombs are going to produce?

    I can tell you how! They know exactly how much energy is going to be produced because of E=mc^2 and for no other reason - period.

    Are there variables in the system that might through their calculations off by some tiny percentage? Of course! We don't live in a laboratory but that doesn't mean that the formulas don't work. In fact, its when they are wildly off when we learn something. When they first tested the Castle Bravo bomb at Bikini Atol it yielded a MUCH bigger punch than they expected because they thought the Lithium 7 in their fission material would be inert. Well it wasn't and so the bomb yielded something like 15 Megatons instead of the expected 6 megatons. The point being that the 15 megatons is just what it should have yielded given the amount of material that was turned into energy based solely on E=mc^2.

    Not only that but what do you think, that it's just a happy coincidence that the measured speed of light is within the margin of error of the measuring devise(s) of what the theoretical value should be?

    Come on now! Where oh where is the profit in denying such things? If you're going to argue against something the scientific community believes why not pick something that actually has something real to debate? Why not pick something that they clearly don't have correct or at least something that it's reasonable to suggest that they don't have correct? If you're going to argue against Einstein, then argue against his definition of time. If you're going to argue against modern cosmology, then debate whether or not electricity can or cannot effect systems on astronomical scales (which most scientists deny - by the way). If you want to throw doubt on a popular scientific theory then pick on the ones that cannot be tested, like String Theory. Just, whatever you do, don't go around denying things that we absolutely know for a fact are true! The Earth is round, apples fall to the ground, the Moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun and the speed of light is precisely 299,792,458 meters per second.

    Clete
    Ideas can succeed with approximations. That a theory is useful is no proof that it is perfect.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 18th, 2019)

  16. #56
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Are there variables in the system that might through their calculations off by some tiny percentage? Of course! We don't live in a laboratory but that doesn't mean that the formulas don't work.
    What if there was a formula that worked better?

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 18th, 2019)

  18. #57
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Ideas can succeed with approximations. That a theory is useful is no proof that it is perfect.
    Oh I am not suggesting that Einstein's theories are perfect. But Einstein didn't come up with the speed of light and the speed of light is not a theory, nor is it dependent upon any other theory. It has been directly measured. It's no more of a theory than is the distance to the Moon or the shape of the Earth.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  19. #58
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    What if there was a formula that worked better?
    You got one in mind?

    Even if you did, it wouldn't alter the value of c. The speed of light is not theoretical. As I keep saying, it has been directly measured.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  20. #59
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Oh I am not suggesting that Einstein's theories are perfect. But Einstein didn't come up with the speed of light and the speed of light is not a theory, nor is it dependent upon any other theory. It has been directly measured. It's no more of a theory than is the distance to the Moon or the shape of the Earth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    You got one in mind?

    Even if you did, it wouldn't alter the value of c. The speed of light is not theoretical. As I keep saying, it has been directly measured.
    It doesn't sound like we disagree on anything. Light speed can be measured and e=mc2 is an approximation of it.

  21. #60
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,522
    Thanks
    622
    Thanked 6,654 Times in 3,553 Posts

    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147771
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    It doesn't sound like we disagree on anything. Light speed can be measured and e=mc2 is an approximation of it.
    E=mc^2 is not an aproximation of anything, least of all the speed of light. The speed of light is a constant used in the formula but it does not define what that constant is equal to.

    Having said that, we are clearly more in agreement than not. My entire point about the speed of light is that it isn't merely a mathematical construct and that it definitely does travel, neither of which you really disagree with - I don't think.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us