[mikema63]

The tides come in the tides go out, you can't explain that!

Anaswad, pointing to things that science hasn't figured out is a God of the gaps. Everyone has pointed to this or that calling for god to fill the gap. Stable orbits for example. They have always fallen.

That we don't know something doesn't mean that God is hiding there.

[yiostheoy]

I disagree. Anasawad's deity could theoretically reveal itself to every man woman and child on Earth simultaneously in a flash of blinding light, announcing its plan for humanity etc etc, and then perform some miracle like stopping the Earth's rotation. I'd be basically convinced at that point. That would settle it. You could always say ... [ALIENS] ...

but at that point it is kind of semantics.

With really good analytical philosophy you make yourself equal to God(s) thus enabling yourself to judge Them according to your own value system.

IF you don't love or like the God(s) then you can simply curse them and become atheist ... .

OR if you do love or like them then you can choose to become Theist or Deist.

Philosophy gives you freedom of choice.

But before you can embrace philosophy you must rid yourself of brainwashing.

And then you need to learn to think clearly and analytically without fallacies.

Attempting to prove a negative is a fallacy.

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

Argumentum populum is a fallacy.

Affirmation of the consequent is a fallacy.

Ad hominem is a fallacy.

These fallacies all need to be strictly avoided in analytical philosophy.

[anasawad]

The tides come in the tides go out, you can't explain that!

Not sure what that means actually ?

Tides don't go in and out, tides are actually gravitational waves that are steady in their location.
Basically tides are stationary while the earth is rotating thus material on earth goes through tidal waves
But mostly water and air is only effected by it as its that strong in a sense.

Anaswad, pointing to things that science hasn't figured out is a God of the gaps. Everyone has pointed to this or that calling for god to fill the gap. Stable orbits for example. They have always fallen.

Pointing out that science hasn't figured out something is when we talk about something an event or a type of material or a particale or what ever that applies by the current laws of the universe.
If those laws does not exist then we wont ever be able to figure out that thing.

That we don't know something doesn't mean that God is hiding there.

The question of whats before the big bang is exactly the same as whats outside the edges of the universe.
Cant be found out.
Now in the case of the big bang, we know it happened, we might figure out how it happened, but we wont be able to figure out in one hand why it happened and on the other hand where did the first singularity come from. Because to do so we're pretty much going outside the universe.

So beyond that point, you can only theorize about what was and what made it happen.
There are many theories about it.
And God or an external force in general creating it and causing to happen is one of the most accepted theories about it. Because logically everything needs a begining or a source so to say.

[Nets]

The tide goes in, the tide goes out. You can't explain that, anasawad.

The question of whats before the big bang is exactly the same as whats outside the edges of the universe.
Cant be found out.
Now in the case of the big bang, we know it happened, we might figure out how it happened, but we wont be able to figure out in one hand why it happened and on the other hand where did the first singularity come from. Because to do so we're pretty much going outside the universe.

So beyond that point, you can only theorize about what was and what made it happen.
There are many theories about it.
And God or an external force in general creating it and causing to happen is one of the most accepted theories about it. Because logically everything needs a begining or a source so to say.

Who is to say that in the future we won't develop a method of detecting phenomena from before the big bang? Or gather new evidence that sheds conclusive light on what came before? You are assuming these things.

Why do things have to have beginnings, and cause-effect? Particularly when we are talking about a time (for lack of a better word) before time and space? Who is to say that the universe just hasn't been big-banging and big-crunching repeatedly infinitely many times in the past? Why not? You are assuming these things.

[skinster]

I'll start believing in god just as I'll start believing in ghosts; whenever I see one/them/it/me etc.

[Decky]

Do you believe in Farage Skinster?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I'll start believing in god just as I'll start believing in ghosts; whenever I see one/them/it/me etc.

How can you possibly not be scared of ghouls? They're terrifying!

[skinster]

I'm tough.

Plus, I reckon in a one-on-one with god, I'd win. That's how tough I am.

[Nets]

Anasawad cannot disprove that I, NetsGod, control the tides. Therefore, this theory is just as scientifically valid as tidal forces and gravitation and all that satanic jazz.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Praise be NetsGord, praise be NetsGord, I will never tell a sin, never ever.

[Nets]

Wow, no sins? You must be right up there with me. It's lonely at the top.

[anasawad]

Because science is based on what we can observe, measure and test.
Thus it is based on the laws of physics.
A place where there are no laws if physics, no laws of relativaty, nothing that we ever know as science is a place we cant identify its nature.
And since we also cant simulate anything like it, nor will it ever happen again in the age of humanity.
Then it is the point beyond reach.
Everything we know about the big bang comes from reversing the state of evolution of physical laws in the universe and basically its status.
But the more you go back the more those laws break down because simply, the minute you go beyond the time they formed to existence, you no longer can test them.

In short the only way to find out is to literally leave the universe. But in one hand we cant as its impossible. And on the other hand.....well also impossible.
So yea you can only science the current, you cant science whats outside of the universe because to do so you have to exist in it and study it all over like there was no science ever before.

Why do things have to have beginnings, and cause-effect? Particularly when we are talking about a time (for lack of a better word) before time and space? Who is to say that the universe just hasn't been big-banging and big-crunching repeatedly infinitely many times in the past? Why not? You are assuming these things.

Time is a force or a dimension, both words are considered valid scientifically for it. It came to be along with other forces in the universe after the big bang.
Before the big bang there was no time. Because "time" is something in our universe.

The tide goes in, the tide goes out. You can't explain that, anasawad.

Yes because it doesn't make sense. What does it mean that tides goes in and out.
Tides are stationary. We move in and out of them not the other way around.

[yiostheoy]

I'll start believing in god just as I'll start believing in ghosts; whenever I see one/them/it/me etc.

That's called agnosticism and it is closely related to Empirical science -- where seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling are also king.

The problem with it is that it also ignores the philosophical paradoxes of first cause, prime mover, artistic artificer, and purposeful designer. So agnostics must live with unresolved paradoxes in their lives forever.

The tremendous advantage of it of course is that it is unlikely that you will blow your balls to smitherines with a suicide vest on the promise of 72 virgins, like in radical Islam.

[Donna]

Empirical science is simply the tautological and inessential study of density. Epistemologically it is masturbation.

[mikema63]

Yes because it doesn't make sense. What does it mean that tides goes in and out.
Tides are stationary. We move in and out of them not the other way around.

1.) It's something bill o'reily said in an argument against an atheist as a sort of god of the gaps. He get's mocked constantly for it because we do, in fact, know why tides happen and it's become a bit of symbol for how silly the god of the gaps is.

2.) How do you think tides work, because we don't move into them.

[anasawad]

@mikema63
Tides are generated by gravitational pull from the moon, and less so from the sun, as the sun is much further away so the moon has more direct effect.
There are two opposite regions in eath depending on the moon line. 1 region would be facing the moon directly and the other would be on the exact opposite side of the earth.
The one facing the moon would have a gravitational pull towards the moon, outward. While the one opposite two it will face a gravitational pull in the opposite direction caused by the earth gravity.
This gravitational pull is stationary on the moon line and only moves with the moon movement.
While on the same time earth is still rotating which generates waves.
i.e water is pulled outwards and contenints move into the water not the opposite. Thus you have tides.
The difference in the size of the tides in different locations is due to their angle from the moon line.

Here there are 2 points to understand.
1-Many would describe it as a strech in the water surface which is wrong, its more of a squeeze in the water surface.
To explain. if we measured the water level in an ocean, where we move from a point where the effects of moon gravitational pull is weaker to a point where its strongers which means to a point at the exact center of that region.
The water level would actually be going up as we get close and closer to the center.
Ofcourse that would be a measurement in a single moment of time because, well the earth is rotating.

2-Unlike what many people believe, for this reason everything in the world experience this gravitational pull, whether it was oceans, lakes, seas, sand, rocks, us humans, etc. But simply since the ocean in a way works like a giant hydrolic pump, then the effects are much more noticable.
But if for example we tried to measure the effects in a cup of coffee. its there but it'll be so microscopic that its almost impossible to notice without a machine measuring it.


Imagen it this way easier. There is a scene in the movie interstellar where they go into a planet that has giant tsunami waves constantly.
The planet is all water. And if you stand between the waves, the water is knee level. While the waves are higher than buildings.
Many people commented about this that its stupid and unrealistic. But in reality since the planet is orbiting a black hole, then the gravitational pull is enormously huge. Which means that water will be squeezed out in a huge level. So you have one point where the water is knee level and anther where the water is up to the sky.
Now what happened is, the waves aren't actually moving ( they are moving but moving compared to the pulling source which means along the orbital cycle not along mintutes or hours or so, in case of earth with moon cycle, and in case of the movie with the cycle of the planet around the blackhole.), whats happening is that the planet is rotating on it self, and the people are moving with the planet, so along the planet movement, they bump into waves not waves into them.

Ofcourse everything is effected by the gravitational pull but water specially in huge surfaces would be effected more than a rock or so obviously.

[Nets]

Anasawad, that is just one theory. And not really one you can prove. Can you show me your planetary-scale, reproducible, experiment that demonstrates how all this hypothetically works? No, you can't. It is a theory that is predictive and explains the observable evidence but you can't prove it. You can't actually explain to me what the hell gravity is. Something must be pulling stuff, let's call it Poseidon. An alternate theory is that Poseidon wills the tides to do his bidding every day. You can't disprove this theory.

This shows the hypocrisy in many people here pretending those who believe in Poseidon are idiots when everyone is standing on the exact same ground.

[anasawad]

Gravity is a force. proven. Just like nuclear force.
Something we can test, measure, and observe anywhere.

There is no other theory explaining tides, because this one is the one based on evidence and tests.
It was proven and it passed.
If you cant debunk it, then you don't need to speak of it.

Also if you cant debunk the concept of god, then you cant pretend those who believe in it are idiots.


Poseidon and Greek Mythology has many legit explanations, just like roman and Persian Mythology.
I stated it before right in this thread.


BTW, this isn't a theory of tides as much as it is the basic rules of physics. Which are tested, can be observed, Experiments can reproduced and show clear results.
So yes, i can, and well...Half the scientists on earth already did over and over and over again. You should watch more documentaries.

As you said to me, you should differentiate between scientific and logical theories.
Scientific theories like this one is based on observation and tests and evidence.
Logical theories are based on logic and reasoning based on what we already know.

For example, we can work it out and give a theory to what exist beyond the edges of the universe. How ever its not scientific because the laws that binds our universe and thus we study, are limited to it. So whats beyond its edges is beyond reach. And we also can not and will not ever be able to go there as the universe is exapnding at an infinitly accelirating speed, which is btw proven. So even if we built a spaceship that can travel with the speed of light, we still wont get there.
Theories about whats there, outside the edges of the universe are logical theories abiding by some preconceived rules we have.

Those type of theories cant be proven correct, but also cant be proven wrong.
Those also include all the theories of what happened before the big bang.

For greek gods which you seem to love to troll using them, thats historical theories. And thus we can find out what we need or want about them.
We already found about some and theorize probability the same about others.

[Besoeker]

'm interested in this.

What is your best arugment that god doesn't exist ?

And can you prove that god does not exist scientifically and logically, noting that you must provide full bases and support that can not be debunked in anyway.

Specifically the Islamic understanding of god.

You do understand the difference between proof and evidence don't you?

[Besoeker]

Gravity is a force. proven.

Not proof. A theory verified time and again.

http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/09/513465-the-nature-of-science-why-gravity-is-just-a-theory

Something we can test, measure, and observe anywhere.

Repeatedly and objectively are two key points you missed.
How would your god measure up to such tests?