• Sections
Is the bible a fairy tale?

# Is the bible a fairy tale?

Posted in the Atheism Forum

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3429 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Space has dust and other items in it that would be opposition to falling. It would be a small opposition but it is there. Your body has its own gravity. You cannot go no where with out the influence of gravity.
Weight is not opposition to gravity but rather the strength of the gravity on an object.
The force of gravity on an astronaut in low earth orbit is about 99% of the force at the surface of the earth (inverse square law). The difference is that the astronaut is not opposed by the ground from continually falling (which is what an orbit is). They have weight whenever they accelerate by using their thrusters, but not otherwise.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3430 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know I just didn't feel like rewriting a book on gravity.
Speed slows time down for the speeder the observer senses time at there normal rate. Someone traveling faster then the speed of light will feel only ten minutes pass while the observer will see something like weeks go by. Both the faster then light speed traveler and the stationary person experience time the same but because of the speed of the traveler only ten minutes passed while the other stationary person had weeks go by. Both times are real and any time piece would measure the time at both places the same 10 minutes for the speed traveler and weeks for the stationary person. This has been tested and proven.
This is wrong in several ways.

First of all, you don't have to go faster than light to have these effects. In fact, going faster than light is impossible as far as we know.

Second, both the 'speeder' and the 'observer' will see their own clocks as going the normal rate. Both will see the *other* clocks as slowed down. Each sees the other as moving. There is no such thing as absolute movement in this context.

Third, in order to actually have a 'twin paradox', the twins need to get back together again, which requires an acceleration, destroying the symmetry of their situations. When that happens, the accelerated twin has aged less.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3431 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one universe, the word UNIVERSE means ALL space, time, matter, energy. Your reference to multi verses they would still be part of the universe. But I do understand what you mean.
Time cannot pop into existence with out time, unless it was created. Thus the need for a creator.
Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.
In the situation where there is a multi-verse, the Big Bang is only the transition for our universe to a state of expansion. In other words, the word 'universe' as applied to the Big Bang *in this context* is only a part of the 'universe' which consists of all matter, energy, time, etc. In such models, time is infinite into the past and is, of course, uncaused.

In those models without a multiverse, your concept of the 'universe' and the Big Bang concept agree. In that case, time only goes finitely far into the past and is, again, uncaused. Time did not 'pop' into existence. To imply that suggests there was a previous time. The best way to think about it is that existence itself has only existed for a finite amount of time. There was a second with no previous second.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3432 Jul 29, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree...there is no way to answer that with a definite answer. I told my boyfriend that when I think about it and see it in my head, I see this universe, and all of our planets and galaxies, and then I think to myself how far apart these places are spaced out... I can't help but think that we have now traveled farther than we ever have before...
Actually, the farthest a human has traveled is just past the moon (the Apollo missions orbited the moon over 40 years ago). The farthest a mechanical device made by humans has gone is about 100 times the distance to the sun from the earth. That is much, much, much less than the distance to the nearest star.

A good analogy is to make a scale model where the distance from the earth to the sun is one inch (for American audiences, unfortunately).

On this scale, the distance to the moon is about the diameter of a human hair. The distance to our furthest probe is about 9 feet. The distance to the nearest star is over 4 miles. The distance to the center of our galaxy is 25,000 miles (equivalent to the distance around the earth). And our galaxy is just one of hundreds of billions that we know about. Our probes (let alone ourselves) have barely scratched the surface of even the universe we know about.

Now, we have other probes that can *look* and see many things. But we have not been there.
if we can figure out how to keep traveling away from our planet, there has to be other planets out there...other galaxies...other universes. I don't see why that is not entirely possible :D I wish that I could be around to see what happens...It's already so amazing how far we've come.
We know of hundreds of billions of galaxies other than our own. We know of hundreds of solar systems other than our own (they are quite difficult to detect). Whether there are other universes depends, at least in part, on your definition of the term 'universe'.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3433 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Space has dust and other items in it that would be opposition to falling. It would be a small opposition but it is there. Your body has its own gravity. You cannot go no where with out the influence of gravity.
Weight is not opposition to gravity but rather the strength of the gravity on an object.
There is no such thing as mass with out weight. Gravity is everywhere.
Gravity is very weak, and the weight might be very small too small to feel but it's there.
Your opinions about science you don't understand might matter more after you become brave enough to prove the god your cult sent you here to lie about to atheists.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3434 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one universe, the word UNIVERSE means ALL space, time, matter, energy. Your reference to multi verses they would still be part of the universe. But I do understand what you mean.
Time cannot pop into existence with out time, unless it was created. Thus the need for a creator.
Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.
The opinions of your mental illness of faith do not apply to the rest of civilised society.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3435 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are said to be weightless. The weight is too small to feel. There is no escaping gravity. Weight is the strength of gravity on an object so everything always has some weight even it is very small. Gravity is everywhere.
Gravity is real, god is not. Your point?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3436 Jul 29, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>I see what you're trying to say I think, but I still can't say that I agree with the creator theory. I just see no reason for a creator to have to be..... I've also said before that I could never believe in a creator who would create humans as a play toy. I also think that the idea of an omnipotent being causing this much confusion among his/her creations just doesn't fit the definition of omnipotent. There are many reasons why it doesn't make sense to me.
Then you believe that nature had the best run if luck ever recoded in the universe. Thousands/millions of times luckier then it has a right to expect.
All this life out there just lucky enough to have had the dice not land snake eyes not even once in billions of years.

And time to pop into existence all on its own from nothingness.(Which is impossible by the way).

Science only knows about 2% of our universe. I would not be betting my soul on such a slim understanding of everything.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3437 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you believe that nature had the best run if luck ever recoded in the universe. Thousands/millions of times luckier then it has a right to expect.
All this life out there just lucky enough to have had the dice not land snake eyes not even once in billions of years.
And time to pop into existence all on its own from nothingness.(Which is impossible by the way).
Science only knows about 2% of our universe. I would not be betting my soul on such a slim understanding of everything.
And that 2% is thousands of times more than religion has ever done. You can't even prove you *have* a soul, let alone that your beliefs will have any bearing on it in the long run.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3438 Jul 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You can't possibly answer that question, another point you have only limited yourself from understanding.
Weightlessness can be achieved by balance.
If you weight is .00000000007 mg it really isn't measurable, so fo all intents and purpose you are weightless.

We couldn't determine if alternate time lines or other inflating or expanding universes are beyond the constraints of this one.
There possibly could be others entirely disconnected from this one.
This universe could have also risen from a previous one, there is just no way of telling, though we try to answer these questions.
Penrose thinks he found echos of a previous universe.
Which could explain why we appear to have a false ground state in this one and why gravity is hard to explain.

Still other cosmologists imagine universes colliding and causing a transfer between them. The answers are not all there, and you surely cannot say there is only a singular universe, or multiverse of one, or even a few disconnected universe with different space/time continuums, right up to infinite universes. We just don't know.
You just grabbed that number out of your ass?

You don't know what a humans weight in space is.

Do you want to talk facts or what feels about right?

"you surely cannot say there is only a singular universe"

This shows your complete lack of understanding of a word.
The word UNIVERSE means ALL matter, space, time, and energy.
Look it up!
Multi verse would therefore be part of the universe. I am not say multi verses don't exist just that there can be only one universe.

"Penrose thinks he found echos of a previous universe."

An echo would be what exactly?
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#3439 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that 2% is thousands of times more than religion has ever done. You can't even prove you *have* a soul, let alone that your beliefs will have any bearing on it in the long run.
Exactly. There is no evidence of a soul. And it makes no sense that a deity would judge us on the basis of beliefs, and not on actions, which would be a lot fairer. To think we live forever as souls is just wishful thinking.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#3440 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
And time to pop into existence all on its own from nothingness.(Which is impossible by the way).
The God hypothesis does not answer big questions either, as no explanation is given for who made God.

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3441 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You just grabbed that number out of your ass?
You don't know what a humans weight in space is.
Do you want to talk facts or what feels about right?
"you surely cannot say there is only a singular universe"
This shows your complete lack of understanding of a word.
The word UNIVERSE means ALL matter, space, time, and energy.
Look it up!
Multi verse would therefore be part of the universe. I am not say multi verses don't exist just that there can be only one universe.
"Penrose thinks he found echos of a previous universe."
An echo would be what exactly?

You have limited the scope of exactly what everything unknown can be,
to your definition. I'm not sure if reality conforms to the conceptions of anyone , let alone you. I assure you a singular universe is only a concept , that YOU have limited yourself to.

Penrose contends that looking at the inflationary phase of the early universe, is like looking at "v" while looking at the universe itself is like looking at "V". Maybe you could visualize it in the model here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JQfP3bPVjus/UUVpgbH...

To understand his hypothesis of the aeons of time you would for all intents be seeing a scalar transition from a inflationary phase to the expanding universe, that could have repeated itself once or twice,
or even an infinite number of times. Too which he points to bands in the CMB here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IdE-xwjB1Kc/TPDOZ_U...

All that is in the CCC or conformal cyclic cosmology model of the universe. In which if you follow the cosmology of universe modeling is somewhat a variation of an oscillating universe. But is incorporating what we know now about the universe, and makes hypothesis about that inflationary period, and the CMB.
But as a final note I can only say that wiser men than us consume themselves today as well back for thousands of years ago about the constraints of this universe.
We simply cannot answer all the questions yet, and even the brightest of them got some things wrong, historically speaking.

So what the hell makes you think you can determine the definition of constraints and limitations of this or any other universes?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3442 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You just grabbed that number out of your ass?
You don't know what a humans weight in space is.
Most of the 'weight' of an astronaut in low earth orbit is due to tidal effects. Because of the typical size of spacecraft, the 'gravitational field' across a spacecraft is on the order of a millionth of the corresponding field on earth. hence the term micro-gravity. In this context, a 100 kg astronaut would 'weigh' the same as a tenth of a microgram would on earth. But, again, grams, kilograms, and micrograms are not units of weight. They are units of mass. And the mass is the same in orbit as on earth.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3443 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you believe that nature had the best run if luck ever recoded in the universe. Thousands/millions of times luckier then it has a right to expect.
All this life out there just lucky enough to have had the dice not land snake eyes not even once in billions of years.
And time to pop into existence all on its own from nothingness.(Which is impossible by the way).
Science only knows about 2% of our universe. I would not be betting my soul on such a slim understanding of everything.
I'm sorry, but I'm not betting my soul on anything in all actuality. No matter how silly it seems to you that I feel the way that I do, it seems just a silly to me that you think that "god" created all of these different planets "just because"... not only that, but he only placed life on one of them... it's just too much. I just cannot see any purpose for a creator. It's extremely difficult for me to see a creator in the biblical form even more so than just saying a creator. I also find it very hard to even think about a creator having such an interest in humans at the level that the bible says.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3444 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, the protists are single celled life that are neither animals nor plants. When they developed a symbiosis with the ancestors of chloroplasts, they became primitive plants. When others started congregating, they became primitive animals.

Protists themselves were already much more complex than bacteria. In particular, protists have separate nuclei, mitochondria, and other internal organelles, unlike bacteria.
And you believe this is the life form that started life on earth?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3445 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The force of gravity on an astronaut in low earth orbit is about 99% of the force at the surface of the earth (inverse square law). The difference is that the astronaut is not opposed by the ground from continually falling (which is what an orbit is). They have weight whenever they accelerate by using their thrusters, but not otherwise.
No they have weight. All mass has weight. Space would be bent by their existence although it is so small it is easily written off as weightlessness.
Every time they make contact with a speck of dust there is resistance to the free fall. Again it's very little and easily written off. But weight and gravity is still there.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3446 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>This is wrong in several ways.

First of all, you don't have to go faster than light to have these effects. In fact, going faster than light is impossible as far as we know.

Second, both the 'speeder' and the 'observer' will see their own clocks as going the normal rate. Both will see the *other* clocks as slowed down. Each sees the other as moving. There is no such thing as absolute movement in this context.

Third, in order to actually have a 'twin paradox', the twins need to get back together again, which requires an acceleration, destroying the symmetry of their situations. When that happens, the accelerated twin has aged less.
I never said you had to go faster then light. I used this (Einstein's example) as a simple example. I also said this has been tested. They used 2 atomic clocks one in Death Valley the other on a 747 flying for a week straight. The two clocks we no longer in sync with each other.

Your second point is incorrect. The observers would appear if able to be observed by the speeder the speeder would see a very fast moving earth (observers).

Third yes I'm aware of this and agree
I don't recall what I posted that you are trying to correct.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3447 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>In the situation where there is a multi-verse, the Big Bang is only the transition for our universe to a state of expansion. In other words, the word 'universe' as applied to the Big Bang *in this context* is only a part of the 'universe' which consists of all matter, energy, time, etc. In such models, time is infinite into the past and is, of course, uncaused.

In those models without a multiverse, your concept of the 'universe' and the Big Bang concept agree. In that case, time only goes finitely far into the past and is, again, uncaused. Time did not 'pop' into existence. To imply that suggests there was a previous time. The best way to think about it is that existence itself has only existed for a finite amount of time. There was a second with no previous second.
There are many views on multi verses and the Big Bang. All are still highly speculative.

I total disagree with time being uncaused. Time is not a by product or an uncaused. Time is the first thing to exist with out it nothing can exist and because it was first it cannot be uncaused.

Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3448 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And that 2% is thousands of times more than religion has ever done. You can't even prove you *have* a soul, let alone that your beliefs will have any bearing on it in the long run.
A bit irritable, aren't we.
The bible gives us far more then science and far more important info then science.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

### Atheism Discussions

Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 min 15th Dalai Lama 3,466
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Frindly 84,105
BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... Fri Eagle 12 - 9
Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... Dec 14 Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Dec 14 blacklagoon 3 41
The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 13 Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Dec 13 Eagle 12 - 132

#### Atheism News

More Atheism News from Topix »

More from around the web