Proof of God

[Single Serving Jack]

MySiddhi wrote

Here is WHY you have to concede the earth has expanded as an empirical fact;

Here's why we don't have to do any such thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

The expanding Earth theory is wrong, deal with it.

[Professor Chaos]

Wow. I so wish I was from another planet. I can't take the stupidity of my species anymore.

[Mog]

MySiddhi wrote

Here is WHY you have to concede the earth has expanded as an empirical fact;

(1) All of the earth has been dated, including all of the sea floor (basalt level) and all the continental plates (granite level).

(2) The granite continental plates are 2 BILLION years old. The basalt sea floor is no older than 70 million years old.



Newest 10 million or so is RED, and as we go back in time orange, yellow, green, blue, with the oldest dating of the sea floor being 70 million years old.

(3) The granite continental plate fit together completely on a much smaller earth.

Which given the current ratio of land to water mass, would be one eight the volume of the current earth. This implies an earth more dense than iron. Its pretty clear that something else is going on here, and Neal Adams's hypothesis, while cool visually, had something missing physically.

With these scientific facts... earth's expansion can no longer be called a theory. It is simply a fact that the earth has expanded!

No, you state 3 facts, and then go to a false hypothesis based on those facts.

The real question though... is what was the mechanism of expansion?

(4) The creation of the basalt sea floor corresponds with the time frame of the last major extinction event; the disappearance of animals such as the T. Rex.

(5) The bible claims the said extinction event was due to a global flood and that earth was previously surrounded by lots of water in the heavens.

This so-called flood event is supposed to have taken place during human history though.

(6) Tons of pure water falling to the earth would create hydration, osmosis, and buoyancy expansion forces upon the entire lithosphere; a causal mechanism for earths expansion.

(7) If there was tons of gaseous water in the thermosphere (which is thousands of degrees F securing gaseous form) and the granite continental plates were placed back together forming a smaller earth; the atmospheric pressure would be higher because of more gas in the atmosphere; And the gravitational density would be lower because the water mass that would be otherwise located and absorbed in the earth would be spread out in miles of the atmosphere (creating a reverse gravity effect on the surface of the earth).

(8) A higher atmospheric pressure would increase the absorptive diffusion of respiration (including through the skin of insects allowing them to be of GIANT size) as well as improve the aerodynamics of winged flight (allowing the existence of GIANT dragonflies and supportive of actual fight for pterodactyls which otherwise could not fly in our current atmospheric pressure); and a lower gravitational surface gradient would also improve flight characteristics as well as support the existence of GIANT land animals such as the Sauropoda (up to 122 metric tons) which could not have walked in our current gravity.

As far as I can tell, there isn't any significant amount of water in the earth's magma layer. Lava has no water in it. In fact lava doesn't even have any hydrogen in it, so all this supposed expansion is supposed to be from the water we find in the ocean, which happens to be only 6 or 7 miles deep in its deepest point.

Furthermore, the claim that this smaller earth would have a lower gravity is absurd, given that surface gravity is measured by the equation:
Any mass difference is more than countered by the smaller radius you claim the planet has. This is elementary physics.

(In fact, our second largest planet in the solar system, Saturn, has a lower surface gravity than our Earth has.)

Rhinoqulous wrote

[

This has what to do with my objections to you exactly? Maybe you should take a look at proposition 2 of chapter 3.

"The body cannot determine the mind to think, nor can the mind determine the body to motion or rest, or anything else (if there is anything else)."

Sorta puts a damper on your brilliant "proof", doesn't it?

And how about you actually read the next paragraph of the same proposition and chapter;

"Note.--This is made more clear by what was said in the note to II. vii., namely, that mind and body are one and the same thing, conceived first under the attribute of thought, secondly, under the attribute of extension. Thus it follows that the order or concatenation of things is identical, whether nature be conceived under the one attribute or the other; consequently the order of states of activity and passivity in our body, is simultaneous in nature with the order of states of activity and passivity in the mind. The same conclusion is evident from the manner in which we proved II. xii."

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

yawn

Sorry, Spinoza was not a "dual" aspect monist (even if Wikipedia wrongly claims that he is). There are (necessarily) an infinite number of modes of existence under his metaphysics. "Mind" and "Matter" are just two of those modes. Besides, theories that show dualism as an aspect of language and not reality itself (such as Davidson's) are on much firmer ground. You need not assume the existence of some non-tangible mode-of-existence to explain (the descriptions of) mental phenomena.

You simply have not actually read his Ethics... and the part that you have read you did not understand.

You're still avoiding all the other problems I brought up, such as logic being value-neutral (meaning you can't prove the existence of any "thing" through logic), the limitations of language, etc. Maybe an extra layer of tinfoil will help you in finding the answers.

I have responded to this... but I will do it in another way just for you (but try re-reading what I said to you because I won't repeat myself);


(Christopher Langan)

"God topologically contains the endomorphic points which descriptively contain God."

We have a tautology, which defines God on inclusion in the endomorphic points, which is itself defined on the predicate God. This reflects semantic duality, a logical equation of description and inclusion whereby perceiving or semantically describing an attribute of an object amounts to perceiving or describing the object's topological inclusion in the set or space dualistically corresponding to the predicate. According to semantic duality, the description of the attributeof God on the endomorphic points from within God makes God a self-defining predicate, which is analogous to a self-including set. An all-inclusive set, which is by definition self-inclusive as well, is called "the set of all sets".



We can infer that empirical proof will be mapped in, through, by, and of God.

(Christopher Langan)

"The description of God is mapped through the endomorphic points in God."

Endomorphism is a mathematical concept where an object is mapped through itself.

[Professor Chaos]

Mog wrote

You seem like a reasonably bright guy.

Single Serving Jack wrote

Here's why we don't have to do any such thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

The expanding Earth theory is wrong, deal with it.

Plate tectonics is falsified by the FACT that the granite continental plates are 2 BILLION years old and the basalt level is no older than 70 million years old.... destroying any possibility of significant subduction (besides the fact that magma is three times more dense then granite). lol

[Single Serving Jack]

MySiddhi wrote

Plate tectonics is falsified by the FACT that the granite continental plates are 2 BILLION years old and the basalt level is no older than 70 million years old.... destroying any possibility of significant subduction (besides the fact that magma is three times more dense then granite). lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Idiot...

[Mog]

Professor Chaos wrote

Well, a: I'm being polite, and b: being bright doesn't mean you aren't wrong, it just means you can come up with more contrived ways to avoid admitting you are wrong.

Unlike Calpurnpiso, I don't think all the religious nutters that come here are retards. I just think that they managed to outsmart themselves.

[Professor Chaos]

I know. I choose "a."

You are a sweetheart.

Mog wrote

Which given the current ratio of land to water mass, would be one eight the volume of the current earth. This implies an earth more dense than iron. Its pretty clear that something else is going on here, and Neal Adams's hypothesis, while cool visually, had something missing physically.

What I am presenting is not Neal Adam's hypothesis it is mine. I credit Neal Adams only for the graphics. He suggests a universal atomic expansion which is quite absurd and has no real verification with other planets (though he does try for Mars).

This so-called flood event is supposed to have taken place during human history though.

This may answer that question;

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiri...Dinosaurs.html

As far as I can tell, there isn't any significant amount of water in the earth's magma layer. Lava has no water in it. In fact lava doesn't even have any hydrogen in it, so all this supposed expansion is supposed to be from the water we find in the ocean, which happens to be only 6 or 7 miles deep in its deepest point.

The entire basalt crust can be considered a hydrate.

Furthermore, the claim that this smaller earth would have a lower gravity is absurd, given that surface gravity is measured by the equation:
Any mass difference is more than countered by the smaller radius you claim the planet has. This is elementary physics.

If the density remains the same, a smaller volume has a lower gravitational field.

(In fact, our second largest planet in the solar system, Saturn, has a lower surface gravity than our Earth has.)

No it does not;

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/...aturngrav.html

MySiddhi wrote

If the density remains the same, a smaller volume has a lower gravitational field.



No it does not;

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/astr121/Notes/Saturn/saturngrav.html

Even though this site disagrees with others on the surface gravity I think we can still hold the point;

The issue is density and volume.

If Saturn has a lower surface gravity because it has a larger atmosphere... that is exactly what I am claiming the earth would have... a lower surface gravity!

[Mog]

MySiddhi wrote

What I am presenting is not Neal Adam's hypothesis it is mine. I credit Neal Adams only for the graphics. He suggests a universal atomic expansion which is quite absurd and has no real verification with other planets (though he does try for Mars).




This may answer that question;

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiri...Dinosaurs.html




The entire basalt crust can be considered a hydrate.



If the density remains the same, a smaller volume has a lower gravitational field.



No it does not;

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/astr121/Notes/Saturn/saturngrav.html

First of all the density of a smaller Earth wouldn't be the same. Are you expecting incoming meteors to give the Earth 7 or 8 times the mass? Because you certainly can't expect all that mass from the water, which happens to have only 20% of the density of the earth. I don't see your flood story talking about a huge meteor swarm, do you? What you are suggesting is an extremely copious amount of mass, much more than any flood story. Hence I have to conclude your story is absurd.

As for Saturn, wikipedia made a mistake. I'll grant that one. My point still stands, though.

(And the surface gravity measured for saturn is actually what the gravity is on top of all its atmosphere. The solid surface of Saturn would have gravity somewhat higher.)

[calpurnpiso]

MySiddhi wrote

Technically you are even right in my world view. You see, consciousness is alive... any ideate you hold becomes alive in and of itself especially if that ideate has the syntactic structure of self consciousness. But I don't want to confuse the conversation with technical details of magik.



Some of the gods and delusions are useful for reasons of magik which would only confuse you. Some of the gods though are actually real in and of themselves and I need not think about them for them to separately exist. I am merely attracted into their guidance by virtue of my action potentials.




I know I have the divine nature... and I wish more would realize that.




No human can touch my future without my permission.




Here is proof of a Global Flood;

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiri...bal_Flood.html




The brain is a hard drive. Physicist have proven that consciousness actually comes all the way down from our DNA!



Wouldn't it be better to be drunk off an awe inspiring pantheistic God than use drugs?



Many atheists I know of are not really enjoying their life all the much. Actually as I see it it is pantheists who understand the law of attraction who are the happiest.



You would be well without the materialism virus.



Don't try and take my self assurance away. lol

Sorry retard, you are deluded reasoning not much different than a schizophrenic. You have no idea what Magik is. It is all CREATED by the brain. I suggest you get educated and READ the Book of the Dead. You keep IGNORING the FACTS I presented when I suggested you READ the 3500 year old copy of the Book of the Dead at the British museum.

All of the tales in the Bible are there retard. INCLUDING the FLOOD which is nothing more than the flooding of the Black sea over 8000 years ago. look at the EVIDENCE retard. There have been NUMEROUS FLOODS since prehistory.

"According to a report in New Scientist magazine (4 May 2002, p. 13), the researchers found an underwater delta south of the Bosporus. There was evidence for a strong flow of fresh water out of the Black Sea in the 8th millennium BC.
The review of sediments in the Black Sea coming from a series of expeditions carried out from 1998 to 2005, firstly in the frame of a collaborative project between France (Ifremer[3]) and Romania (GeoEcoMar[4]), then followed by a pan-European project (Assemblage[5]) coordinated by Gilles Lericolais,[6] confirmed the conclusion of Pitman and Ryan. These results were also completed by the Noah project led by the Bulgarian Institute of Oceanology (IO-BAS). Furthermore, calculations made by Mark Siddall predicted an underwater canyon that was actually found.
The hypothesis remains an active subject of debate among archaeologists. "

Get educated retard but first put some anti Christ-psychosis GLASSES on. Your brain is blind to REALITY.

Here retard READ IT or are you afraid if you read it your Christ-psychosis bubble will burst? I guarantee it will!

Mog wrote

First of all the density of a smaller Earth wouldn't be the same.

The solid density would be significantly lower.

Are you expecting incoming meteors to give the Earth 7 or 8 times the mass?

no

Because you certainly can't expect all that mass from the water, which happens to have only 20% of the density of the earth.

The density of liquid water may be quite different than what is assumed from the usual hydrodynamic equations.

"We investigate the local structural heterogeneities that may appear in liquid water by studying a model of interacting water pentamers. We find local energy minima which we identify with well-defined configurations, and advance the hypothesis that one of these configurations may be related to local “high-density” structural heterogeneities occurring in liquid water when subjected to high pressure. Our results are consistent with experimental data on the effect of high pressure on the radial distribution function, and are further tested by molecular dynamics simulations reported here."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7e19c05cd2dacb

The pressures of the oceanic water can exceed 1100 bar!... and much of this water may in fact be in "high-density" configuration.


Further, you also need to consider that water in hydrates of solids can have high density as well.

[Choobus]

If you can't get something simple like gravity right people may suspect that you're full of shit.









here's how your arguments sound to me:


If ten percent of people are gay then if you take a room with 100 people and split them into two groups then 10% of each group is gay, and if you split them into two groups again then 10% of the four groups are gay. That's 4 x 10% = 40%. Split them up again into eight and you get 80% gay. Eventually only 10% are not gay and so immediately you see that separating groups of people makes them gays, so when you separate humans from god you get homosexuals. This proves that

1) God is necessary for humans to exist (gays cannot procreate via the anus, medical fact)

2) Homosexuality is evil (it is separate from God: Thomas Acqanus, Spinoza, Ron McDonald)

QED