# "A billion and a half years ago two black holes collided"



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2018)

I'm listening to the Tow Professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College of Columbia University, Janna Levin on a podcast and she said this ^^.  I wonder how many people think that she doesn't know what she's talking about or might say "She's got more faith than I do"?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2018)

She goes on to say that this collision occurred when "single celled organisms were starting to differentiate between multi celled organisms". Does she know more or less than the men who wrote the Bible?  I'm talking about general knowledge of the natural world.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2018)

She says that "it was heard in the ringing of space-time". Is she and anyone who believes her crazy?


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 9, 2018)

So, exactly where in the Hebrew text of the Torah does it say ANYTHING to dispute the "modified big bang" theory, or dispute genetic selectivity?

The answer is most definitively, NOWHERE.  

Both of the creation poems in Genesis are - in the original Hebrew - clearly and certainly metaphorical as well as magnificently beautiful works intended to be canted (or sung).  It is both interesting and amazing that in both DIFFERENT poems the development and serial order of events so closely matches the (currently accepted) modified big bang and genetic selection theories. But no classically trained theologian, that I am aware of, actually argues against scientific evidence of creation.  In fact, a number of top physicists insist that the Hebrew creation poems (and earlier works from the Middle East) are evidence of God's presence in the lives of ancient people.

Certainly, major events in the universe create "ripples" and it is possible to find evidence of the aftereffects in the universe today.  That does not mean Dr. Levin is smarter than the poets in David's or Soloman's court about 3,300 years ago.  Dr. Levin does know things that those ancient poets never knew, and I suggest that the poets knew things Dr. Levin will never learn.  Those simple facts do not make either crazy, more knowledgeable, or less than the other.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2018)

GeorgiaBob said:


> So, exactly where in the Hebrew text of the Torah does it say ANYTHING to dispute the "modified big bang" theory, or dispute genetic selectivity?
> 
> The answer is most definitively, NOWHERE.
> 
> ...



Like what?  That's an honest question, not anything else.  I just want to know.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 9, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Like what? That's an honest question, not anything else. I just want to know.



"Like what?"  I do not understand your question.  Please explain the information you are seeking.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2018)

GeorgiaBob said:


> "Like what?"  I do not understand you question.  Please explain the information you are seeking.


_
"I suggest that the poets knew things Dr. Levin will never learn."_

Like what?  What did they know that Dr. Levin will never learn?  And how do you know Dr. Levin so well?


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 9, 2018)

Do you seek some ambush attack from my response?

My statement was not a secret code, or "dog whistle" code.

Dr. Levin did not live 3,300 years ago.  She never met King David or his son Solomon. It is very unlikely she is fluent in pre-Babylonian Hebrew, mid era Parthian, Nineteenth Dynasty Egyptian, Etruscan, or even proto-Greek.  The poets of Genesis' creation stories, were fluent in some of these languages and likely also knew specific talents (like creation of the unique red/purple dye used in Jerusalem at that time) that Dr. Levin cannot know (because that process is lost to history).  They also "knew" a cosmology that is not known to anyone today - not even Dr. Levin. Even though I do not recall ever meeting her, I assure you that i do not need to "know Dr Levin so well" to know simple obvious facts.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2018)

GeorgiaBob said:


> Do you seek some ambush attack from my response?
> 
> My statement was not a secret code, or "dog whistle" code.
> 
> Dr. Levin did not live 3,300 years ago.  She never met King David or his son Solomon. It is very unlikely she is fluent in pre-Babylonian Hebrew, mid era Parthian, Nineteenth Dynasty Egyptian, Etruscan, or even proto-Greek.  The poets of Genesis' creation stories, were fluent in some of these languages and likely also knew specific talents (like creation of the unique red/purple dye used in Jerusalem at that time) that Dr. Levin cannot know (because that process is lost to history).  They also "knew" a cosmology that is not known to anyone today - not even Dr. Levin. Even though I do not recall ever meeting her, I assure you that i do not need to "know Dr Levin so well" to know simple obvious facts.




Oh.  Ok.  You were being literal.  I thought perhaps you were alluding that the writers of the Bible had knowledge from supernatural revelation that Dr. Levin doesn't have access to.  Dr. Levin doesn't know how the totems on Easter Island were moved either.  She, you, and I know that there are people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that their only source for that belief is the Bible.  That's not an admonishment of the Bible (the writers of the Bible didn't get much right about anything scientific).  It's an admonishment of an intellectual process.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Sep 9, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> She, you, and I know that there are people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that their only source for that belief is the Bible. That's not an admonishment of the Bible (I don't expect that the writers got much right about anything scientific). It's an admonishment of an intellectual process.



Neither I, you, Dr. Levin, nor the Psalm writers in Solomon's court, can be held accountable for the misunderstandings of people who choose to base their cosmology upon their own lack of comprehension of a 400 year old transliteration/translation encompassing 13th century BC Hebrew, 3rd century BC Hebrew, 1st century Jewish, Aramaic, two dialects of Greek, Roman Latin, proto French, 16th century CE Italian Latin, and late middle English (the languages of the principle documents used by the King James translators).

But to be specific, the King James Bible is a fantastically accurate and wholly remarkable transliteration/translation.  The significant error is NOT in the KJV of the Bible.  The error is in the absence of intelligence in those who decide to assume some parts are "factual" while they "know" others are not.  Language, cultures, technology, all change - Idiots, apparently, do not.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2018)

The people who lived during the time of David and Solomon got their information from generations before them, and they likely got their information from cultures before them and they likely got their information from a culture before them.
All along the way they took what was given, changed and added what they wanted and someone else borrowed it and made their changes.

Why do so many religious people want to stop at the contents of the Bible as if it all started there?
History shows that is not the case.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 10, 2018)

In the fundamentalist mindset history/knowledge/myths/cultures/etc. did not start too much earlier than around the time the bible stories came about. In other words man & animals were created at the same time and thus began all the societies & cultures in the bible. Thus there weren't thousands of years and too many generations of oral communication for stories to vary too much before it was passed along with accuracy & written down with accuracy. When you condense all of humanity into a few thousand years it makes more sense that the bible was almost written in "real time" with a solid connection between Adam & Eve and New Testament times. That said why do religions in general all think that the world began when their book was written? Because nobody is going to believe in a book that "might" be true, they need to know that it is true. There can only be one truth so their religion is the true religion and every other religion is wrong by default.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> In the fundamentalist mindset history/knowledge/myths/cultures/etc. did not start too much earlier than around the time the bible stories came about. In other words man & animals were created at the same time and thus began all the societies & cultures in the bible. Thus there weren't thousands of years and too many generations of oral communication for stories to vary too much before it was passed along with accuracy & written down with accuracy. When you condense all of humanity into a few thousand years it makes more sense that the bible was almost written in "real time" with a solid connection between Adam & Eve and New Testament times. That said why do religions in general all think that the world began when their book was written? Because nobody is going to believe in a book that "might" be true, they need to know that it is true. There can only be one truth so their religion is the true religion and every other religion is wrong by default.


Sumerians have the Jews by 2000 years:



> As advanced as the Ancient Sumerians were in the areas of mathematics and communication, they lacked understanding of the forces of nature, causes for diseases, or famine. The Sumerians began to worship many of the forces of nature. Their whole world centered upon the power of deities, as well as countless demons, spirits, and ghosts. Their stories, some imaginative, others terrifying, helped the Sumerians explain their unpredictable and powerful gods.
> 
> Creation of the World – Enlil, the god of heaven and the air separated heaven and earth. He did not like being caught in the darkness, so Enlil forced himself on Ninlil (“lady wind” or “lady air”) who gives birth to Nanna (or Sin), the moon-god. Nanna sails across the sky in a boat, bringing light to the firmament, scattering the “little ones” (stars) like grain, and the “big ones” (planets) that walked like wild oxen around them.
> 
> ...


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 12, 2018)

writing promises on the hearts of his children AKA his followers? Since each follower is unique (and thus interprets things differently) there would be no "right answer" when it comes to knowing what god commands or is trying to communicate.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Sep 12, 2018)

If two black holes collide in space and no one has evolved ears to hear them yet, does it still make a sound?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> If two black holes collide in space and no one has evolved ears to hear them yet, does it still make a sound?




It apparently did.  The "sound" took a few billion years to get to us.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> writing promises on the hearts of his children AKA his followers? Since each follower is unique (and thus interprets things differently) there would be no "right answer" when it comes to knowing what god commands or is trying to communicate.



It all comes down to personal revelation.  Why is it that in all other aspects of life, people hold personal revelation as a low bar for determining truth, yet when it comes to the belief in God, it's regarded by believers as the most reliable metric (except when it's someone else's God)?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> If two black holes collide in space and no one has evolved ears to hear them yet, does it still make a sound?



I like this question and it's cousin involving a tree in the forest.  It talks about consciousness and language and reality.  We can imagine that even if there were no conscious creatures in the Universe that if "a tree fell in the woods" (or any physical object hit another one) that it would disrupt air, if it were present, and the collision would vibrate the material (or in the case of the black holes, the fabric of space time).  It's assumed that that phenomena would produce an effect that conscious creatures might call "sound", but even if no one's around to hear it, the phenomena would occur.  So, does it make a "sound"?  Yes, and no, and yes. It depends on the context.

I always thought that this song was about phenomena.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It apparently did.  The "sound" took a few billion years to get to us.


How do you / she know? The big bang could have happened right here.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> How do you / she know? The big bang could have happened right here.



C'mon, Man......You can google as well as I can.  It's funny, I was out to dinner and someone asked a question about physics.  We sat there trying to recall what we had been taught in high school and threw out related information that never answered the question.  My 9 year old daughter borrowed my phone and simply looked it up.  There's no excuse to live in ignorance anymore.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


If you're asking me what I consider good evidence for how scientists date cosmological events I would say I'm most compelled by the "Red Shift" caused by the Doppler Effect.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 12, 2018)

Anyone can google speculative theory. But by it's very name does not make it fact.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Anyone can google speculative theory. But by it's very name does not make it fact.



Do you think the Doppler Effect or Red Shift are speculative theories?  How about Gravity?  If you disagree with her analysis, can you point to specific things she says and reply "I think she got this wrong because....." 

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text...thods/s04-01-how-do-we-know-what-we-know.html


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 12, 2018)

Nothing she has said interest me in the least. This is tantamount to cavemen discussing why water is wet. It is all speculative until science learns the facts. 

Once upon a time the medical community deemed eggs extremely bad for us on speculative science. Now magically they are extremely good for us.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Anyone can google speculative theory. But by it's very name does not make it fact.



Give me your best scientific theory as to why you think the Earth is 6,000 years old, or is not a scientific question?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Nothing she has said interest me in the least. This is tantamount to cavemen discussing why water is wet. It is all speculative until science learns the facts.
> 
> Once upon a time the medical community deemed eggs extremely bad for us on speculative science. Now magically they are extremely good for us.




I understand.  Science is not "your thing".


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Give me your best scientific theory as to why you think the Earth is 6,000 yeasr old, or is not a scientific question?


The discussion of how old the earth is, is of little consequence to me, nor does it effect my future in any way. Why in the world would I want to discuss that?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I understand.  Science is not "your thing".


I think science is great. Real Tangible Science that is. Not speculative theory.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The discussion of how old the earth is, is of little consequence to me, nor does it effect my future in any way. Why in the world would I want to discuss that?



I understand your thinking quite clearly.  There's no reason for you to discuss it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I think science is great. Real Tangible Science that is. Not speculative theory.



You mean speculative theory like quantum mechanics (which isn't understood) that powers your cell phone?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You mean speculative theory like quantum mechanics (which isn't understood) that powers your cell phone?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


>



Which part is funny? Quantum mechanics is "speculative theory"?  Quantum mechanics isn't understood?  Or quantum mechanics powers your cell phone?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

Do you think the Doppler Effect is speculative theory?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> C'mon, Man......You can google as well as I can.  It's funny, I was out to dinner and someone asked a question about physics.  We sat there trying to recall what we had been taught in high school and threw out related information that never answered the question.  My 9 year old daughter borrowed my phone and simply looked it up.  There's no excuse to live in ignorance anymore.
> 
> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> ...



The reason to care about any of this comes at about 15 minutes in.  If that reason doesn't resonate with you then it doesn't.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It all comes down to personal revelation.  Why is it that in all other aspects of life, people hold personal revelation as a low bar for determining truth, yet when it comes to the belief in God, it's regarded by believers as the most reliable metric (except when it's someone else's God)?



Because it's THAT real.  If you have never experienced it, it's incomprehensible, if you have, it's undeniable.  That's the best I got.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I like this question and it's cousin involving a tree in the forest.  It talks about consciousness and language and reality.  We can imagine that even if there were no conscious creatures in the Universe that if "a tree fell in the woods" (or any physical object hit another one) that it would disrupt air, if it were present, and the collision would vibrate the material (or in the case of the black holes, the fabric of space time).  It's assumed that that phenomena would produce an effect that conscious creatures might call "sound", but even if no one's around to hear it, the phenomena would occur.  So, does it make a "sound"?  Yes, and no, and yes. It depends on the context.
> 
> I always thought that this song was about phenomena.
> 
> ...




Have a "Like" for my most favorite (and catchiest) muppet tune ever.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 12, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because it's THAT real.  If you have never experienced it, it's incomprehensible, if you have, it's undeniable.  That's the best I got.


I come soooo close to being able to accept this as a legitimate answer.
"If you haven't experienced it you cant know". Seems legitimate and reasonable to me.
But then Christianity had to throw a monkey wrench in.
Christianity had to claim theirs as true and everybody else's false.
That opens up a whole can of questions that Christians don't have legitimate answers for other than "you just gotta believe".


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because it's THAT real.  If you have never experienced it, it's incomprehensible, if you have, it's undeniable.  That's the best I got.



Do you believe people when they say that they've been abducted by aliens?  What about when they insist that it was THAT real?  I tend to just agree with them with an "Mmmmmmmm-oh kaaaaaayy".  I don't care if they think it was real but I don't really believe them and to the extent to which they let their "abduction" shape their lives I might not consider them for babysitting.  Why do you think belief in God gets a pass from that kind of scrutiny?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because it's THAT real.  If you have never experienced it, it's incomprehensible, if you have, it's undeniable.  That's the best I got.


I agree that what people believe is an experience absolutely seems real to them. Often life changing.
Sfd, in all sincerity,  what do you think is happening to people that have those same life changing experiences who are not Christians? Who or What is responsible for those? Are they AS undeniable?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I come soooo close to being able to accept this as a legitimate answer.
> "If you haven't experienced it you cant know". Seems legitimate and reasonable to me.
> But then Christianity had to throw a monkey wrench in.
> Christianity had to claim theirs as true and everybody else's false.
> That opens up a whole can of questions that Christians don't have legitimate answers for other than "you just gotta believe".



Honestly, once Christ is revealed to you, having ALL the answers becomes irrelevant.  We all have close family or friends that you know that they have your best interest at heart, would never lie to you, and you could count on to help out no matter what you asked.....one’s you can trust literally with your life.  That’s what knowing Christ is like.  IF you trust the persons character,  you trust their words.  No other belief offers that relationship.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you believe people when they say that they've been abducted by aliens?  What about when they insist that it was THAT real?  I tend to just agree with them with an "Mmmmmmmm-oh kaaaaaayy".  I don't care if they think it was real but I don't really believe them and to the extent to which they let their "abduction" shape their lives I might not consider them for babysitting.  Why do you think belief in God gets a pass from that kind of scrutiny?



I would believe it if “I” had been abducted by aliens.  See my point?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 12, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I agree that what people believe is an experience absolutely seems real to them. Often life changing.
> Sfd, in all sincerity,  what do you think is happening to people that have those same life changing experiences who are not Christians? Who or What is responsible for those? Are they AS undeniable?



Bullet, I’m vaguely familiar with most world religions.  I don’t know of ONE where the laiety claim a personal one on one relationship is possible with God and are secure in their salvation solely because of his character.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, I’m vaguely familiar with most world religions.  I don’t know of ONE where the laiety claim a personal one on one relationship is possible with God and are secure in their salvation solely because of his character.


So?
Who decided this is some sort of determining factor? Does this prove something? Does this prove a god that you don't have a personal relationship to not exist or be "false"?
Its like saying -
"I don't know one other religion who has a god that looks like a Doobie Brother".
"Therefore"...…..  what?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, I’m vaguely familiar with most world religions.  I don’t know of ONE where the laiety claim a personal one on one relationship is possible with God and are secure in their salvation solely because of his character.


Are you familiar with the Ancient Greeks and how active their gods were in every day life? Have you ever heard of Judiasm? Islam?
Maybe you have heard of Hinduism?
Hindus also worship several gods and goddesses. They are not different entities but different aspects of the same highest Brahman. In their deepest essence, they are same as Brahman. They also have some features or qualities or energies that distinguish them from other divinities and which are essential to uphold the Divine Law or Dharma. There is also a belief that the gods of Hinduism, including the Hindu Trinity are advanced souls of previous cycles of creation, and they are elevated as gods by virtue of their good deeds. Devout Hindus worship them as their personal gods and goddesses representing the highest Truth. One of the tenets of Hinduism is, "ekam sat viptra bahuda vadanti", which means the Truth is one but perceived and spoken in different forms. If God has many forms and if they are all the same in the final essence, it logically follows that He can be worshipped in many ways and that we can reach Him through any of His forms and manifestations.

Akasat patitam toyam yatha gacchati saagaram,
Sarva deva namaskara kesavam pratigacchati

Which means:

Just as the rain water wherever it falls finally flows down into the ocean, so also worship offered to any god will ultimately reach the supreme God.

According to Hinduism all life is sacred and every being is an aspect of God in a latent form. God creates the worlds and populates them with different beings for His own pleasure. A self realized person is but God in human form. God also incarnates upon earth from time to time to restore order and protect the weak and the meek from the evil. The fact that different gods are but aspects of one and the same God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

So, now that it is established that there are in fact more than one religion that has personal relationships with their god(s) and those gods interact with the believers personally, AND those believers are secure in their salvation because of their gids character...is the experiences of those believers on equal ground proof wise as yours?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Are you familiar with the Ancient Greeks and how active their gods were in every day life? Have you ever heard of Judiasm? Islam?
> Maybe you have heard of Hinduism?
> Hindus also worship several gods and goddesses. They are not different entities but different aspects of the same highest Brahman. In their deepest essence, they are same as Brahman. They also have some features or qualities or energies that distinguish them from other divinities and which are essential to uphold the Divine Law or Dharma. There is also a belief that the gods of Hinduism, including the Hindu Trinity are advanced souls of previous cycles of creation, and they are elevated as gods by virtue of their good deeds. Devout Hindus worship them as their personal gods and goddesses representing the highest Truth. One of the tenets of Hinduism is, "ekam sat viptra bahuda vadanti", which means the Truth is one but perceived and spoken in different forms. If God has many forms and if they are all the same in the final essence, it logically follows that He can be worshipped in many ways and that we can reach Him through any of His forms and manifestations.
> 
> ...



Yes.  I am familiar.  You are much too learned to not recognize the major differences, and I honestly don’t care to beat this dead horse of an meme.  I was simply answering Bush’s question the most honest I know how.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  I am familiar.  You are much too learned to not recognize the major differences, and I honestly don’t care to beat this dead horse of an meme.  I was simply answering Bush’s question the most honest I know how.


Sfd, I just want an honest answer, even if you have to write up a lengthy explanation as to why people of other faiths, religions and beliefs, all claim what you claim and yet you refuse to acknowledge that their life changing experiences are the same. 
What are the major differences?
As far as I can tell, Jesus is the only difference, they are not experiencing Jesus, but the rest is exactly the same. But kind of like what Walt said, claiming Jesus is the difference is semantics. You are substituting one god for another and by that alone you want to negate the very experiences of others that you say are the vital difference in your claim.They have their god(s) reach out to them. Their gods save them from bad things and harm, their gods interact with them.  Their gods fill them with emotions and on and on.

I am just asking you to back up answer with more detail.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So?
> Who decided this is some sort of determining factor? Does this prove something? Does this prove a god that you don't have a personal relationship to not exist or be "false"?
> Its like saying -
> "I don't know one other religion who has a god that looks like a Doobie Brother".
> "Therefore"...…..  what?



Well first and foremost it points out the obvious:  that all religions make exclusivistic truth statements.  This being the case, only one COULD be true.....not all or even some which kills the meme “all roads lead to Rome./all religions are the same”

As to your second point.  I really can’t add anything over which I have already stated.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

I never would have suspected this thread would devolve into an anti-thiest thread.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I never would have suspected this thread would devolve into an anti-thiest thread.


After it devolved into a pro-theist thread, anti is the natural next step..


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

So, by that reasoning all of those here that are vehement about NOT being anti-thiest are completely incapable of a neutral response as a "non-theiest / athiest" and in fact see the need to defend their stance as anti-thiests.

Clear as mud.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Sfd, I just want an honest answer, even if you have to write up a lengthy explanation as to why people of other faiths, religions and beliefs, all claim what you claim and yet you refuse to acknowledge that their life changing experiences are the same.
> What are the major differences?
> As far as I can tell, Jesus is the only difference, they are not experiencing Jesus, but the rest is exactly the same. But kind of like what Walt said, claiming Jesus is the difference is semantics. You are substituting one god for another and by that alone you want to negate the very experiences of others that you say are the vital difference in your claim.They have their god(s) reach out to them. Their gods save them from bad things and harm, their gods interact with them.  Their gods fill them with emotions and on and on.
> 
> I am just asking you to back up answer with more detail.



I’ve given you the most honest answer I know.  No point in writing a thesis that’s sure to be rejected.  

My only question to you would be this:  If, as you readily affirm, all religions are the same, and all peoples of varying religions believe in God and are blessed by God, what’s your excuse?  HOnestly you don’t need bother answering that.  I pretty much know the narrative by now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I never would have suspected this thread would devolve into an anti-thiest thread.



That’s my fault.  I allowed myself to be pulled into argueing the sky is up.  Sorry.  Too ignorant for my own good.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That’s my fault.  I allowed myself to be pulled into argueing the sky is up.  Sorry.  Too ignorant for my own good.


I don't believe anyone here is "ignorant". I do think it gets old when every single thread devolves into a "My God's bigger than your no god" and both sides are to blame. Neither are ignorant, just passionate about their beliefs, which at times gets in the way of them actually and neutrally addressing a topic at hand. In this arena I would think that the atheist would be more adept at offering cogent debate of substance than the non-atheist, though both are quite capable.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I don't believe anyone here is "ignorant". I do think it gets old when every single thread devolves into a "My God's bigger than your no god" and both sides are to blame. Neither are ignorant, just passionate about their beliefs, which at times gets in the way of them actually and neutrally addressing a topic at hand. In this arena I would think that the atheist would be more adept at offering cogent debate of substance than the non-atheist, though both are quite capable.



That's pretty interesting.  Why do you think that?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’ve given you the most honest answer I know.  No point in writing a thesis that’s sure to be rejected.
> 
> My only question to you would be this:  If, as you readily affirm, all religions are the same, and all peoples of varying religions believe in God and are blessed by God, what’s your excuse?  HOnestly you don’t need bother answering that.  I pretty much know the narrative by now.


Which God would be my answer.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So, by that reasoning all of those here that are vehement about NOT being anti-thiest are completely incapable of a neutral response as a "non-theiest / athiest" and in fact see the need to defend their stance as anti-thiests.
> 
> Clear as mud.


Is it too much to ask  or unreasonable to expect someone who makes a claim to back that claim up with facts?
Should we, any of us, accept whatever anyone else says as truthful just because they say it?

I don't live my life that way. Maybe I am different??


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Is it too much to ask someone who makes a claim to back that claim up with facts?


You mean like a thread about the color of Watermelon and the next question / post in the thread is; "What makes you think God created that watermelon?"

Sure, run with that if it satisfies your need for relevancy, but it still offers no subject content on the actual topic at hand.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Is it too much to ask  or unreasonable to expect someone who makes a claim to back that claim up with facts?
> Should we, any of us, accept whatever anyone else says as truthful just because they say it?
> 
> I don't live my life that way. Maybe I am different??





Miguel Cervantes said:


> You mean like a thread about the color of Watermelon and the next question / post in the thread is; "What makes you think God created that watermelon?"
> 
> Sure, run with that if it satisfies your need for relevancy, but it still offers no subject content on the actual topic at hand.



Bullet's getting off in the weeds a little bit but my intention with the OP _was, _in fact an examination of how we know what we know and why we believe it or not.  I thought you and I were going somewhere interesting, Miguel.  I hope we can get back to it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You mean like a thread about the color of Watermelon and the next question / post in the thread is; "What makes you think God created that watermelon?"
> 
> Sure, run with that if it satisfies your need for relevancy, but it still offers no subject content on the actual topic at hand.


But that isnt normally how a non religious thread goes.
A discussion about a watermelons color would take place in a non-religuous way until someone comes in and makes a claim about the watermelon is colored like that because God made it that way...and THEN I am dying to know the details.

But, this thread started off talking about faith in the original post so....


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

We are all dying, which makes the details a little less important in the big picture.
Live for the here and now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Is it too much to ask  or unreasonable to expect someone who makes a claim to back that claim up with facts?
> Should we, any of us, accept whatever anyone else says as truthful just because they say it?
> 
> I don't live my life that way. Maybe I am different??



Well prove you’re no different then.  Prove there’s no God.  Just the immutable facts.  That’s all I need.  Just cold, hard, reproducible, empiricism.  I’ll hang up and listen?  Jeez..   SMH.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Bullet's getting off in the weeds a little bit but my intention with the OP _was, _in fact an examination of how we know what we know and why we believe it or not.  I thought you and I were going somewhere interesting, Miguel.  I hope we can get back to it.



I apologize for taking it off topic.  I should have just answered your question and bailed not being baited into another tired dead topic.  Again, my apologies.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well prove you’re no different then.  Prove there’s no God.  Just the immutable facts.  That’s all I need.  Just cold, hard, reproducible, empiricism.  I’ll hang up and listen?  Jeez..   SMH.



I have a feeling. When you get it you'll know....

I give you,welder,spotlite, israel and everyone else every opportunity to back up what you interject into conversations in here.
I am actually hoping that someone someday can and will take the opportunity to provide evidence of what they claim.

It is impossible for me to prove a negative. I cannot prove something that is imagined does not exist. The lack of evidence everywhere else leads me to believe that no such thing exists except in someones mind. And I can accept that answer but you and others constantly raise the bar and say that your God does this and does that so I ask you to please provide evidence to back up the claims.

By your logic literally anything that I say must exist merely because you cannot prove it doesn't.  If THAT is what you hang your hat on and THAT is all you can muster as a base for your God, then you really should take a step back and ask yourself, Is THIS All I've Got to defend my God? If this is all the defense and proof of something so true to you, you do not need me to prove its nonexistence.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I apologize for taking it off topic.  I should have just answered your question and bailed not being baited into another tired dead topic.  Again, my apologies.


We hold you to your own claims. If it is baited it is because you are biting your own hook you cast.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It is impossible for me to prove a negative. I cannot prove something that is imagined does not exist. The lack of evidence everywhere else leads me to believe that no such thing exists except in someones mind.


Some people call Black and White colors and want to argue their existence is real because they are called such in the box of crayola's

The fact is, Black is the absence of light, not a color. White is the absence of color, not a color.

ERGO, it is possible for both sides to be right and wrong at the same time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> We hold you to your own claims. If it is baited it is because you are biting your own hook you cast.



Good luck on the upcoming hunting season Bullet and be safe Brother.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Some people call Black and White colors and want to argue their existence is real because they are called such in the box of crayola's
> 
> The fact is, Black is the absence of light, not a color. White is the absence of color, not a color.
> 
> ERGO, it is possible for both sides to be right and wrong at the same time.


True about Black and White in the Light spectrum..
But as far as pigments are concerned, Black is the result of all colors and White is the absence of any color.

I would think,and hope for a believer, that their God is more than color and light.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Good luck on the upcoming hunting season Bullet and be safe Brother.


Like wise SFD.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> True about Black and White in the Light spectrum..
> But as far as pigments are concerned, Black is the result of all colors and White is the absence of any color.
> 
> I would think,and hope for a believer, that their God is more than color and light.


This is false information. If you combine all of the colors of the spectrum all you will get is a dark brown, not a black.

See how that works?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> We are all dying, which makes the details a little less important in the big picture.
> Live for the here and now.



But help make the future better if you can.  I think that the most useful part of scientific exploration. It's also the reason behind philosophical and theological discourse. Besides trying to answer the hardest questions, I think it's a study of how to live a good life.  By many measures, deists claim to live very happy and fulfilled lives. They're also healthier and die better according to some studies.  (Dog ownership also seems to improve measures of quality of life similarly).  But deism also has societal draw backs. 

My line of questioning to believers is usually an attempt to identify the "baby in the bathwater", even if it's a Jew baby playing with a little lamb.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> This is false information. If you combine all of the colors of the spectrum all you will get is a dark brown, not a black.
> 
> See how that works?



As I understand it, an object that's black reflects no light of any visible spectrum.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)




----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> As I understand it, an object that's black reflects no light of any visible spectrum.


Correct, and if you physically combine all colors in the full spectrum crayon box, sans white and black, since they are not colors, you will not be able to produce a true black. Since all colors you are combining are a mixture of absorbing and reflecting colors. 

Black cannot exist with reflecting color in it's mix.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> View attachment 942887


Neat chart, and I've read the argument, but give it a real life physical test and see what you get.

If you mix all of the additive colors on that chart together you will get an ugly purple. If you mix all of the subtractive colors on that chart you will get an ugly dark brown. 

Here in-lies the difference between speculative science and real life practical application.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

This is how we determine what's real or true.  We can stand on the shoulders of all who came before us and test their hypotheses.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Neat chart, and I've read the argument, but give it a real life physical test and see what you get.
> 
> If you mix all of the additive colors on that chart together you will get an ugly purple. If you mix all of the subtractive colors on that chart you will get an ugly dark brown.
> 
> Here in-lies the difference between speculative science and real life practical application.




Ok.  You disagree with "the argument".  Can you tell me what "the argument" states in your own words?  I've never heard color theory called an argument before.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Black


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

Keep reading links all you want. Putting to the test is where you will discover the truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

I used to make all different kinds of black.  There are different tubes of black that they sell.  There's Mars Black and Ivory Black, both of which I used frequently, sometimes in conjunction.

_"What's the difference between Mars black and ivory black?
*Ivory Black* is a brown *black* of moderate tinting strength recommended for general use. *Mars Black* is a denser, more neutral *black* with stronger tinting power. Payne's Gray is a very dark grey with a strong blue undertone that is more subtle than *Ivory Black* giving a purer colour when used in mixing."_

_https://www.google.com/search?q=ivory+black&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab_

Then there's this kind of black, measured by reflectivity:




"Black" is a scientific term as in Black Hole (no reflected light) but it's also commonly used as a subjective term like hot or cold.  There's absolute zero and absolute hot:
_
" *Absolute hot* is a concept of temperature that postulates the existence of a highest attainable temperature of matter."_

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot_

So, with all this in mind, why do you consider what Dr. Levin proposes is speculative?  Isn't one of the tenets of science that whatever they call true today is understood to be subject to revision as new information becomes available?  To me that's a position of strength.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Keep reading links all you want. Putting to the test is where you will discover the truth.



I implore you to click on the link and watch the videos for 5 seconds.

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Black


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

No need. I paint, canvas not houses. A tube of true black will never be replicated using all of the "colors" of the spectrum.

Enjoy your experiment.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> No need. I paint, canvas not houses. A tube of true black will never be replicated using all of the "colors" of the spectrum.
> 
> Enjoy your experiment.



This attitude colors everything you offer in discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> No need. I paint, canvas not houses. A tube of true black will never be replicated using all of the "colors" of the spectrum.
> 
> Enjoy your experiment.



Have you got any pictures of your paintings to show?  I used to paint, too.  I got BFA from UGA.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Have you got any pictures of your paintings to show?  I used to paint, too.  I got BFA from UGA.


Just like the man that love to hunt alone, or fish alone for his own stress relief, solace, or piece of mind, my painting is my respite and not for others viewing or enjoybment. Sorry.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Just like the man that love to hunt alone, or fish alone for his own stress relief, solace, or piece of mind, my painting is my respite and not for others viewing or enjoybment. Sorry.



Kay.


----------



## Israel (Sep 13, 2018)

I got an old paint by numbers I'd be glad to show you.

It's kinda old though, from when they used Roman numerals, so there ain't much detail.













Disclaimer: The above is an attempt at a joke.


----------



## red neck richie (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> No need. I paint, canvas not houses. A tube of true black will never be replicated using all of the "colors" of the spectrum.
> 
> Enjoy your experiment.


Mig I am a printer by trade. What you are saying holds true with ink colors as well. You can mix color to make it look black but it is not a true black. Some people are color blind.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Mig I am a printer by trade. What you are saying holds true with ink colors as well. You can mix color to make it look black but it is not a true black.



Ritchie,  What do you think of any of these posts that I made?



ambush80 said:


> View attachment 942887





ambush80 said:


> https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Black





ambush80 said:


> I used to make all different kinds of black.  There are different tubes of black that they sell.  There's Mars Black and Ivory Black, both of which I used frequently, sometimes in conjunction.
> 
> _"What's the difference between Mars black and ivory black?
> *Ivory Black* is a brown *black* of moderate tinting strength recommended for general use. *Mars Black* is a denser, more neutral *black* with stronger tinting power. Payne's Gray is a very dark grey with a strong blue undertone that is more subtle than *Ivory Black* giving a purer colour when used in mixing."_
> ...



I hope you would like to discuss this with me, Ritchie.  Are you talking about black like what happens in a black hole?


----------



## red neck richie (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Ritchie,  What do you think of any of these posts that I made?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CMYK. Pay attention to the K.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

Just so that I know we're on the same page, when we talk about an object with the color black, are we saying that the object reflects absolutely zero amount of the visible light spectrum?


----------



## red neck richie (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Just so that I know we're on the same page, when we talk about an object with the color black, are we saying that the object reflects absolutely zero amount of the visible light spectrum?





ambush80 said:


> Just so that I know we're on the same page, when we talk about an object with the color black, are we saying that the object reflects absolutely zero amount of the visible light spectrum?


Every color but black requires light to be seen.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> CMYK. Pay attention to the K.



Yes. I remember Color Theory from college.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

Se also "Black":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Every color but black requires light to be seen.



Do you understand the color black to be the complete absence of reflected light in the visible spectrum?  That's how I've always understood it.  Do you understand it the same as me or differently?


----------



## red neck richie (Sep 13, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yes. I remember Color Theory from college.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model
> 
> ...


When CMY primaries are combined at full strength, the resulting secondary mixtures are red, green, and blue. Mixing all three gives an imperfect black or a perfect grey. Read your own links!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

The very topic of this thread OP is the dead give away. How much light does a Black Hole reflect?


----------



## red neck richie (Sep 13, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The very topic of this thread OP is the dead give away. How much light does a Black Hole reflect?


Some just dont see the light. Or who created it. I think its safe to say ambush is no Michelangelo.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Some just dont see the light. Or who created it. I think its safe to say ambush is no Michelangelo.


See what I'm saying Miguel....?


----------



## red neck richie (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> See what I'm saying Miguel....?


See what I'm saying Mig. You prove them wrong on the color black and they come up with this. Heres a song for your funeral BULL et. <iframe width="547" height="410" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> See what I'm saying Mig. You prove them wrong on the color black and they come up with this. Heres a song for your funeral BULL et. <iframe width="547" height="410" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Hey, I'm always willing to learn.  I appreciate the lesson. 

My comment had nothing to do with the color black, rEdnEckrItchIE


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> See what I'm saying Mig. You prove them wrong on the color black and they come up with this. Heres a song for your funeral BULL et. <iframe width="547" height="410" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


No funeral for me. I don't want anyone showing up and blubbering words  when I am gone. Talk to me now when I am alive.
Thanks for your DJ skills.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Sep 13, 2018)

bullethead said:


> See what I'm saying Miguel....?


Fortunately Newton's Third Law of Motion does not apply to internet conversations.

You have the option to reply with equal force, or not. 

Me personally, from my position as a Christian, is I would rather sit down over a glass of sweet tea or a beer, your choice and just talk. We can talk about fishing, hunting, why the earth isn't flat or anything that pops up and I will be happy to listen to your stories of why you believe what you believe and if it's reciprocal I will tell you mine, void of any scripture crammed down your throat and at the end of the period of conversation and beverage we'll walk away with a new appreciation for each other and will have hopefully imbued new perspectives to life in each other. 

Something I doubt can ever happen on the internet.

Heck, I've even had the opportunity to do this with that heathen NCHillbilly I'd do again at the drop of the hat too, if the opportunity presented itself. 

Life is way simpler than the misinterpreted blather found in the internet and I find that most folks are good people and much more interesting in person than the persona they accidentally or intentionally force upon others in cyberspace.


----------



## Israel (Sep 14, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fortunately Newton's Third Law of Motion does not apply to internet conversations.
> 
> You have the option to reply with equal force, or not.
> 
> ...



your above comments come from a kind place Miguel.

Maybe we could pool our resources and all live here:

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/g...-nyc-luxury-apartment/YrLnonGNqgYteyoMc8qnhJ/

But as for me being





> much more interesting in person than the persona they accidentally or intentionally force upon others in cyberspace.



So unless you find a man given to frequent naps on a drool soaked pillow interesting, I remain this fellow:


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fortunately Newton's Third Law of Motion does not apply to internet conversations.
> 
> You have the option to reply with equal force, or not.
> 
> ...


I've told many in here that I'd share a camp fire and beer(s) with them. I doubt many of us are that different except for one subject and neither would know if it were not brought up.


----------

