they are happy with the method they have as it is better than any alternative you offer — universeness

And that's exactky where the digma appears!

And I just saw part of the doctrine on TV, in a show for children. "In the name of science" yawning is investigated. The children are told that smart brains study for us. A visit is paid to a national tech institute where "the smartest brains" work for us. To give us smart and clean cars. "Hallelujah brother!" "And here we put 300 small cute solar panels, you see?" Djeezus! Already the small are pushed on!

No, I just could not understand the context of your words in English? It was your English that made little sense to me. — universeness

Yeah well English is not my native language. What I meant is that we could ask the scientist another way of proving things.

Yeah, good luck with that! Turn, turn that table until you can turn that table no more.
Perhaps all that table turning will make your gods appear and I can say wow! you were correct all along.
I wouldn't bet your life on that happening if I were you. — universeness

Why shouldn't I turn the table and accept the scientific way of proof?

The gods in your head! — universeness

No, it's you putting on masks on gods.

This makes little sense to me. — universeness

Of course not. Because you adopt the scientific proof.

The devil is just god dressed in red, wearing a mask with a couple of horns. — universeness

Who is playing panto now? Or cos play...

They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence and in doing so have freed some of its enslaved/duped/conned minds. The balance is in the favour of the atheists because they have better arguments compared to the theists. — universeness

We can turn the table and ask atheist to see the gods are no fantasy by adopting a non-scientific proof. There are enough of these proofs.

They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence — universeness

Theism has other means to proof than theists . By obliging theists to adopt these means, the take god away.

Seriously? you argue in favour merely because others argue against? — universeness

Yes. But not as playing advocate of the devil. I don't believe in the devil. I believe in gods, so I offer stuff against the atheists. Arguments, reasons, examples, knowledge, etc.

You offer an imbalanced position. I agree that atheists wish to engage theists in debate and are 'happy' when a theist declares that they no longer believe in the god/ religious dogma that they did believe in — universeness

The balance is in favor of the atheists. Why should they feel happy if they succeed in taking someone's theism?

No that would be a contradiction of the term 'preach.'
I was a teacher of 30+ years and I taught computer SCIENCE.
I did not preach the subject to my pupils. I taught them.
You are engaging in emotional sophistry. — universeness

I was asked to teach math. But I refused. Only privately once in a while. Physics and math. In schools it's preaching. Teaching is preaching. And the young ones must learn by law. I didn’t wamt to be some refined slavedriver.

Too, there's a thread on chaos theory and last I checked it had very much to do with the weather! Does chaos not extend to climate? :chin: Oh, I completely forgot, there are patterns in chaos. I could be wrong though; do lemme know if I am. — Agent Smith

Yes. If you change the average T in a shirt time, the natural balance gets distorted. A small change, say 1 degree, leading to less patterns and more chaos.

You mean to say all this climate emergency hullabaloo is much ado about nothing?
— Agent Smith

Yes. — stoicHoneyBadger

Then you don't understand the impact of man, as the figures show you. Im not assigning any moral on how we should behave. Maybe it oughto happen. But the facts don't lie.

I of course completely disagree and would say the same regarding your arguments for polytheism — universeness

It's not my intention to give arguments in favor of them. I only do so because you argue against it. I can't help it you don't understand the arguments.

Science is not a religion so it cannot be preached — universeness

Of course it can be preached. It's done at our schools, like in bible class, but with different bibles and traditions. It presupposes one reality the same for all. In which I believe too, but there are more of these kind if realities. That's the postmodern attitude. Reality relativism, breaking free from the idea Xenoohanes, Plato, and other Greek introduced once upon a time. The thing is, the scientific belief has power and is institutionalized. Which is wrong.

I stated that I would strongly argue against the wisdom and truth of their viewpoint. — universeness

Then you, sofar, haven't given reasonable arguments against theism.

As far as I can tell from my philosophical readings, events are temporal phenomena that can be extended or instantaneous: parties, watching movies, playing chess, calculating an equation are considered examples of temporally extended events. Explosions, particle decays, date expiration, snapping fingers are considered examples of temporally instantaneous events. Not sure to understand the link you see between the notions of “event”, “causality”, and the question of the reversibility or the direction of motion (or time — neomac

"In physics, and in particular relativity, an event is the instantaneous physical situation or occurrence associated with a point in spacetime (that is, a specific place and time). For example, a glass breaking on the floor is an event; it occurs at a unique place and a unique time."

A bit paradoxically... A breaking glas an event?

sounds as unreasonable as "if people would have prayed more to God, there would have been less deaths." — stoicHoneyBadger

If instead of fucking up the planet they had prayed, this would be the case indeed! :grin:


Anyone denying the unbalanced, irreversible, definitive, relentless imprint on nature caused by man is in denial.

did not and do not say that individuals should not or cannot preach/advocate theism/capitalism or even more extreme views — universeness

You mean by more extreme views the scientific view? Because that's what the new atheists preach. With the sane vigor, if nit more,I might humbly add, the theists advicate theism. I say with more vigor, because they are so convinced that they are right. The say they know they are right, while theists believe it.

Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2. — SpaceDweller

:100:

So in the graph we already see a sharp decline in death, yet without a 1 degree temp increase the decline would be even sharper? :grin: — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes. If man wouldn't have fucked up the atmosphere, there would have been less deaths. Because of the fires and floods it created wouldn't have happened then.

Proper time and proper length are therefore relative notions used in special relativity — universeness

No. They are frame independent. Everyone agrees on proper time and length. It's the rate of the clock in the rest frame. That's the same for all observers. Like the proper length.

And we have very good reason to take these laws for granted, because God is extremely trustworthy. So we can all become atheist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not quite. The question still remains who created matter and the laws it obeys to. And you might construct a gigantic string landscape to account for coupling strengths being precisely the tight ones for our current universe to contain life (which is not what I think is a true landscape), but the very existence of this landscape cannot be explained with the theory.

An event can be both a cause and an effect. Indeed. An event is a point in spacetime, somewhat self-contradictory. An event has no temporal extension. Like a happening. Time stands still at an event. The happening finds place and starts at an event, the time and location. So the event is no cause or event, or both at the same time. Coming from what was and starting what to come. Or the other way round if time ran backwards. But please correct me if I'm wrong. Time can start only if the happenings have a start. There needs to be motion before time takes off in one direction. Irreversible motion can be set in motion by a reversible motion of which you can't say it goes forwards or backwards, like an ideal pendulum. It were idea pendulums that set the universe in uniderectional, irreversible motion.

And how do you know it is caused by a 1 degree temp. increase? — stoicHoneyBadger

How else?

The article is about catastophes...And the number of deaths would be lower without temperature increase by man.

I would combat any such views with the same determination that I combat the preaching theist or those who advocate theism — universeness

There is nothing against advocating. Why? What's against it? Atheists do the same for science. It's bad if a view becomes an institute of power and state. And science and state are married as God was once married with State too. Both are unhappy marriages though.

I hear reason speaking here! I would trust you as PM, but not the people in the article. In a sense they are exactly the same as the theist preachers. Why they wanna convince, persuade, or change?

cause and effect — neomac

I thought so already. Cause and effect are separate events. If they coincide its not clear which is which. Simultaneous effect would be just as appropriate. The depression on the cushion can be the cause as well as the effect. The ball can be the cause or effect as well. If we consider a force pulling or pushing and the ball is in rest, there are no cause and effect anymore. Nor a simultaneity of both, So think I in my humblyhumbleness.

War! Pestilence! Famine! — stoicHoneyBadger

Not sure what these have to do with the atmosphere. Poisined air maybe?

not a credible scientific theory. What if forest fires are caused by its mismanagement? — stoicHoneyBadger

It's not a theory. There are just more fires and floods everywhere. For a fact. And you would expect management to have improved.

simultaneous causation is coherent — neomac

To what refers simultaneously here? What things are simultaneous?

ok, but the question still is whether it is a small pleasantry or a global catastrophe. I don't see any tangible evidence to suggest a catastrophe. — stoicHoneyBadger

In general: the shorter a change takes the bigger the consequence. Birth, lightning, a meteor crashing on Earth, etc. So the transgression in short time to a higher temperature will show. There is just more energy injected into the atmosphere. And the energy increases fast. You might call 1 degree rise in 10 years not much but it's huge. And it stays. A natural balance is disrupted. Chaotic effects. Forrest fires and floods happen quite regularly lately.

and maybe time travel — Agent Smith

I had the same thought! Can we cause our own inception? Or prevent it maybe? "POOF!"

Yahweh (the Father), "married" his own mother (Miriam) and sired Jesus (the Son). — Agent Smith

AG, my man! Does that make Miriam the holy spirit? :chin:

A carnal trinity...

There is no fluctuation we induce. We induce a permanent increase (in short time) without fluctuating back. That's not natural. Not normal.

So movement and time are entwined but if movement reaches light speed then the time aspect stops — universeness

No. If an observer reaches for lightspeed, the time he experiences is the same as yours. Time is not relative. But its pace is. It depends on your relative speed to the clock how fast you see it tick. If the clock goes with lightspeed you doesn't see it tick.The problem with a photon though is that there is no for the photon itself. There is no restframe for which this can be said. It always has speed. It's like instantaneous causation in Newtonian gravity. Which implies no time exists at all. The finite speed of light is the cause of not everything happening at the same time, same same place. The finite SOL is the cause if mass and time.

It is accurate in my opinion to say that movement and time are entwined but they are still relative — universeness

Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length.

Notice how you are moving the goalposts. Ok, temperature changes some 10 degrees every day/night cycle. It changes 50 degrees during the year. Having a 20 degree difference between average temperatures withing two sequential years is not unusual. Yet having a 1 degree increase in 30 years is the end of the world? Does that sound reasonable? — stoicHoneyBadger

Okay, analysis time. The final one! Now it's you who moves the goal posts. You introduce whole new goalposts even. The temperature changes you refer to, the daily or seasonal variations, are not what gives the danger. The goalposts we talk about are about the change in the average temperature. This change in average temperature (the energy contained in the whole atmosphere) has occurred before in history, even in shorter time, but this lasted a short time, so nature had not really suffered because if it. The temperature change induced by man is short term and lasting. There is no return to normal.

See goalpost moved again. What exactly is this impact? Sahara is greening because of the release of trapped co2 by human. In cities situation is certainly way better than it was 150 years ago, when everything was covered with soot — stoicHoneyBadger

No goalposts moved here. I placed the problem next to another problem: human intervention in nature in general. So nit only on the atmosphere. Again, I didn't change the posts, I put two larger and thicker ones around them. If you can't see the impact and consequences than yiu wear some damned big blinkers.

Okay. Thanks for the link. But that preon model is not the one I have in mind.

The supercolor force is asymptotically free just as the ordinary color. When the three charged preons are exicted they jump to a higher energy state. This causes the charge distribution to become spatially more extended. Like a charged hadron state of three quarks. Causing the magnetic moment to be different from the ground state.

There are difficulties but again, this stems from massive preons. See here

And here

If "self creation" is possible - OR - if it is not possible - either way does that change how I should live my life? Should I give my worldly possessions to charity and live a life of penance? Should I leave my spouse and spend all my money on booze & hookers? Does this affect how I should feel about the Ukraine situation? Etc? — EricH

That depends on how you look at self creation. If it exists it might change your view of gods, and even let them disappear. Will life have still meaning then? Meaning will be looked for in hookers, drugs, and booze then. All meaningful activities lack true meaning then.