Phi for All

I didn't say it had to be a solid. Liquids and gases are substances too. Fire is not. I only mention it because you do seem to be moving the goalposts around a bit, and it was mentioned by others. A list of unique substances shouldn't contain fire unless you're redefining the word substance. If you want to do that, it might be nice to know why the definition doesn't need precision the way most definitions in science do.

Fire isn't a substance at all. You can't go out and get me a cup of fire, or a bag of hurricane, or a bushel of lightning. All these things are events which happen when many other factors are right, including the presence of other substances. You can't hold fire in your hand without having actual substances available as well.

This is more philosophy than science. "How things came to be" is not under its purview. As far as rules go, if you let a hammer fall from your hand here on Earth, it's going to fall to the ground at a measurable rate. Are you saying that god(s) had to set that up, that the way gravity operates must have some kind of supernatural intelligence behind it? I do agree that all these beliefs sprung from the natural universe in some way. I think our early hunter/gatherer ancestors looked out at night, into the shadows outside their fires, and imagined lions and tigers waiting to pounce. Those with the best imaginations only needed to be right a few times in order to inspire the belief that there are things out there we can't see, that can control our lives if we aren't aware of them, that can even kill. It's easy to see how humans who can imagine future troubles and prepare for them would be revered as seers and shaman.

That just sounds like you're changing the definition of god. Again, why does it need to be a god? Can't it simply be a universe? Study science, and you'll find that we've observed many physical phenomena, and through experimentation we've developed theories to test that knowledge. These are the simpler explanations I was talking about. Much simpler than a god we can't see, doing things for unknown reasons (or not), and taking credit for events we're fairly certain we know the causes of. Why do you think there needs to be a god(s)? Is it just because there are so many tens of thousands of religions around, all claiming a different version? I'm not saying there is no god. I'm saying there's no need for one, so why do so many people feel the need to invent their own version? Or is there a way to distinguish between your god-as-the-universe concept and that of other believers? Is there anything to support this belief?

Your argument needs me to assert that I KNOW there's no god, and my argument doesn't. I'm looking strictly at the preponderance of evidence, and determining that, based on what we've observed, supernatural involvement isn't needed, so why introduce it? Occam's Razor tells me there are simpler explanations that don't need an unobservable, universe-encompassing deity to make things go.

The objection is not whether fire is useful. The objection is because fire isn't an item, it's an event. It happens when conditions are favorable for it, like lightning or a tornado.

Well, if you look at intuition and imagination as tools, you can see how there are concepts/projects where those tools will come in very handy, and others where they will not. Most things we easily solve with math don't need much imagination, and they certainly don't need intuition mucking things up. So I don't think intuition failed, so much as it was applied to the wrong concept. My intuition tells me that if I have a table 3 feet high, and I place a rifle on top, parallel to the ground, and also place a rifle bullet on the table near the edge, and I simultaneously fire the rifle and push the bullet off the edge, that the bullet I pushed will hit the ground 3 feet down waaaaay before the bullet I fired from the rifle hits the ground. But physics uses math as a tool instead of intuition, and it tells me, against every intuitive instinct I feel, that the bullets are both affected by gravity equally, and will hit the ground together. Also, just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we don't know a HUGE amount. And others might disagree, but I think science isn't as much interested in knowing everything as much as it's interested in knowing the next thing, and the next after that. I avoid "categorical statements" by prefacing my sentences with words like "I think". Since the whole concept of god(s) is supernatural and unsupported by reality, I try to show in this way that mine is an opinion only. Progress? I think they've merely shifted the goalposts. No matter what they call it, it still doesn't seem to be necessary, and reality continues apace. And I do think our learning is inhibited by it. Do you need some examples of how ignorance based on religious teachings has cost lives? Aren't we still fighting wars and burying innocents over Iron Age religious concepts that, if they were to spread, would throw a blanket on any kind of enlightenment we've acheived?

I think the irrational option is an ignorant choice. The addition of the unnecessary god aspect to explain natural phenomena seems like window-dressing, and historically it also inhibits productive learning if your answer to what you don't know is "God did it!" I think this god-as-the-universe theory just perpetuates the unfalsifiability of god(s), giving them a nice safe place to avoid observation and predictability. How do you support the concept that god is the whole universe? What evidence could ever show that a supernatural deity is behind a phenomenon we can also, and more easily, explain naturally?

If god is the whole universe, acting as it does without any kind of special privilege or omnipotent superpowers (other than the amazing processes we already know about), then why do we need to call it a god? Why is that bit necessary? Because that's the bit where it breaks down for me. It's so easy to see why we needed gods to explain things when we were ignorant, and how humans would have attributed coincidences to a supernatural force that was difficult to understand but simple to believe in.

What do you think is missing? What foundational ground is in question here? And how is this NOT trying to refute relativity?

OK, I'd like to map the ground we've covered here. Is there any more evidence needed to confirm that breathing is an autonomic function? That part is very well known. As part of the parasympathetic system, the only thing that can override breathing is the sympathetic nervous system, for a fight or flight scenario, and that won't stop you from breathing, it will only make you breath harder to supply more oxygen. This should support further that it's incredibly unlikely that anyone could stop their breathing or heartbeat. The whole system is designed to prevent just that. Is there any evidence contradictory to this? Are there any documented examples refuting what we know about the autonomic system? Because if there isn't, I'd like to discuss why people might believe things like this, from a unnamed 200 year old book, somehow trump what we actually know? What is it about this particular scenario that is appealing to entertain? Is it just because of the mind-over-matter control it implies?

Yes, Rope Theory unifies gravity with the other interactions using a lasso to reach waaaaay outside the box. Score another point for Western science!

So true, and how can creativity and intuition EVER be bad? I suppose you could use them inappropriately. They're tools, after all, that are extremely applicable in some situations, but not in others. How do you convince someone that using creativity and intuition to craft a unified scientific theory is like driving screws with a rope?

Has anyone mentioned how much this seems like the Douglas Adams Puddle Perspective? I think, in 85 years, people are going to be talking about the 22nd century being the pinnacle of our achievements. I think it's going to happen every generation between now and then, and every generation afterward, unless we have a cataclysm that sets us back (asteroid, supervolcano, conservative politics, etc).

You've really convinced yourself that you don't need to study things deeply in order to understand them. It's very frustrating for the rest of us, because we know you're going to waste a lot of time with this delusion, and you'll learn only that you were wrong, and that you should have just buckled down and done the hard work. Years wasted on learning just the one thing.

Like when designers give their clothing to superstar celebrities?

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help. If you can show what you understand so far, and what you don't, the members can help you find the answers.

My point in that post was that I don't think it's democracy when so many people's opinions are being skewed by lies from their own party, and lies + money from big business, and lies from a preaching media that tries to make every side of every issue equally relevant. I think conservatives are being manipulated and misinformed, and I think they make easy targets because they tend to make decisions based on emotions more than reason. To that, you actually replied, ... which certainly seems to imply I think they AREN'T entitled to a political opinion and a vote, that my alternative would strip them of that. If that's not what you meant, I apologize. The problem is easy to see with regard to publicly funded assistance. Conservatives polled are very concerned that we're not spending enough to help the poor and needy. But as soon as you use the media-charged word "welfare", conservatives are almost unanimously against it, and quite obviously not in a rational way. Most of their objections (some of which go all the way back to the Reagan "Welfare Queen" propaganda efforts) have been debunked long ago, which also suggests that these opinions were based on emotionally manipulative lies. I think this ties in with the current discussion because people can't sustain this kind of outrage and emotional momentum without SOME tangible evidence. I think Ten oz mentioned that the GOP has been claiming for so long that Obama's programs were going to destroy us all, that a lot of conservatives are starting to peek their heads out of their FOX holes and see that things are much better than they've been told.

As long as Han doesn't need an Imperial walker....

Breaking Weird. A fun guy goes a rye.

Is this supposed to take up where Return of the Jedi left off? Is this Episode 7? It might be a bit weird to have a new Luke and Leia but an old Han. Chewy is ageless, of course.

Oh please. How did you get, "They shouldn't be allowed to vote!" from what I said?! B i t o f a s t r e t c h , i m o. My alternative is to remove as much money as possible from the elections. AFAIC, it's the money that's been skewing efforts away from democratic representation, no matter which party (it's just that the conservative right seems to use a more emotion-laden approach to issues that, frankly, should be replaced with more reason, less fear and hatred). I don't want large employers using unfair influence on their people to vote a certain way. I'd also change our voting system from first-past-the-post to a more proportional representation system. Right now in the US, the conservatives aren't listening to anyone but conservatives. Their pundits are feeding them a bunch of emotionally-charged rhetoric that doesn't hold up well to scrutiny, but it never gets scrutinized by the choir. So I'd like to see a nationally supported information program, true journalism whose only agenda is to give the straight facts about what is happening around the world, with no spin and no need for advertising. I think we desperately need journalism we can trust not to be in someone's pocket.

Amen, brother imatfaal. The Book of Arnold 8:3 tells us, "Preserve ye the fatback and the belly, and leave thy loins alone, and the pig shall lead you to greener acres."

It exists, I've actually seen some.

I think it's more along the lines of "Oh, he's a ditch-digger, he must like to work with his hands", or "Prison is the perfect place for those who can't integrate into society". What the masses call "logical".