The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Why does this thread keep getting really strange?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

I wouldn't say it gets weird rather than just strange. Pat is often more precise than most in his choice of words, and here I agree with him, this thread keeps getting strange.

What?

I wouldn't be comfortable without knowing your mathematical background and the level of detail you wish to know (i.e. the amount of work you would put into it).

EDIT: There's the standard comment about how great the Feynman Lectures are.

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - February 06 2014 at 12:22

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I wouldn't be comfortable without knowing your mathematical background and the level of detail you wish to know (i.e. the amount of work you would put into it).

EDIT: There's the standard comment about how great the Feynman Lectures are.

My mathematical background is not very developed (not beyond mid high school level), I am more schooled in philosophy and history.
As far as how much I want to spend in this discipline, I don't really know at this point, I think I need to get my feet wet, before ascertaining that.

Everything anyone should learn about physics is in Genesis....

Edited by The T - February 06 2014 at 13:57

Why is there a "- Non religious" in the thread title when the rest of the title is enough?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 06 2014 at 17:28

No; it just looks like "Atheist - Agnostic" would suffice ... unless the "non-religious" part is supposed to specify something ... and I don't know what. A lot of the talking here takes on religion.

The T wrote:

Everything anyone should learn about physics is in Genesis....

Why not...Many creationists have managed to produce a die hard decent. Are we ready for Feynman lectures?

The T wrote:

I guess some people are afraid or not convinced on labeling themselves agnostic or atheists but would be comfortable saying "I'm not religious".

In order to be religious we're meant to "tie" (cf the latin root of the word "religion") to someone which existence cannot be proven. But one can believe in someone one doesn't relate to.

Rick Robson wrote:

I understand what you mean Doug, in fact The Physics theories tell the same about space and time, but the physicists are now realizing that space & time, matter & energy are much more interlaced in the subatomic universe, up to the point that all that concepts we have are totally relative. That's a whole new world they are just begining to dig into.

This is a sentence one would write if one prefers not to go into details, contenting oneself with the vaguest explanations. It's also suspicious. But can we be certain that at least part of it doesn't make sense ?

Maybe any well-taught reader shouldn't "understand what [Doug] mean[s]"? Wandering into intuitive concepts that fail to pass scientific tests shouldn't be "understood" (one should only tell they're strange)?

I don't see how "space&time, matter & energy would be more interlaced in the subatomic universe" than to other scales.

Yet "much more" might mean "much more [ than you seem to believe ]".

As for "all that concepts we have are totally relative", maybe it means all concepts are based on how space & time, matter & energy relate on each other, in which case it'd be another, more general way of saying that's it's interlaced.

Well ?...

Support mine-clearing !
bandcamp collection

Edited by Slartibartfast - February 07 2014 at 04:53

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

To complete his quote:

"When God created the universe, everything was already working perfectly, exactly how He wanted it to work. So, I believe the stars could be seen (however God did that) on earth as soon as God spoke them into existence. Keep enjoying the splendor of the night sky, but remember that God created it to display His glory so we could behold how wonderful and powerful our Creator really is!"

for which he cites Isaiah 40:26:

Lift up your eyes on high,
And see who has created these things,
Who brings out their host by number;
He calls them all by name,
By the greatness of His might
And the strength of His power;
Not one is missing.

So.... let's suppose that when god created the stars he also created the light-waves en-route betwix the star and us so we could see the light instantaneously. See, it all makes perfect sense when your creator can do anything and everything.

Arguing with creationism is a futile endeavour when "god did that" is the answer to every question.

What?