questionposter

Astronomers cannot observe a boundary to the universe and therefore have no choice but to scientifically accept it as not having a boundary until proven otherwise.

Tarantulas are "shy" right?

In an infinitely large universe that possibly didn't have a real beginning or end, it doesn't really matter. Though based on our knowledge, I would say it takes 13.7 billion years if that is in fact about how long ago the matter we see around us was created.

I thought about that too, for a long while, but still took that risk since it seemed kind of more improbable that things would actually play out so specifically to how I happen to imagine them being, and I always carry a rather sharp knife with me in the wilderness anyway and a pocket knife in looser places, but the knife is bought and made from obsidian, 500 times sharper than surgical steel (though not as durable), and I have a special type of case just for it, it's what Native Americans used, which is who I bought it from, but it seems many animals aren't actually aggressive or impulsive like that, they are just trying to get by, enjoy life, avoid major conflict, etc. I don't know if that's the reason it returned later at times even though it had occasionally come around prior to that, I hadn't given it anything since or I would be increasing the risk of what you had said. With that though, I actually don't see much of a difference with that and with other animals, because my dogs aren't trying to eat me, the cats aren't trying to eat me, the dolphin I fed didn't try to eat me. But, I guess those are all mammals, so perhaps there is that type of a difference with reptiles, but it doesn't seem like based on what I've seen with other reptiles. Actually my grandparents use to own like 65 animals, literally, including iguanas, but I guess iguanas are a bit more passive than alligators.

But that's just probability. Given enough time, anything can happen. There are soooooooooooo many galaxies and so much matter that there was bound to someday be a planet that could support life, and then eventually have it. In fact, it's possible the universe itself is infinite in size and contains matter, which practically assures life will exist.

Proof denies faith, and without faith, god is nothing. He needs to keep people believing in him so he can exist, so he occasionally performs miracles upon request! There actually was one guy stupid enough to go out on a lake "which is relatively flat" during a thunderstorm, and said something like "Give it your best shot God!" while standing straight up, and sure enough, he got struck by lightning and died. Though, that can still be explained scientifically, but it's like the stupidest thing I could ever think of because not only are you challenging nature, your challenging god, both at the same time, and when there's no where to run to.

I actually haven't seem a conflict with cats and dogs throughout much of my life, I've mostly seen cats and dogs get along. Perhaps at first there's a fight, but then both don't actually bother each other when they come near after they get use to each other. The dogs I take care of I think notice that I'm not really aggressive towards other animals on my property too. I have two dogs, but they aren't stray, the cats are, and both the cats and dogs know to stay away from the alligator, and again another thing that's different to me, because as far as I've seen dogs are pretty smart too, and it's often cats I considered not as smart even if they are more cunning. If I did see the dogs or cats getting closer I'd probably just throw a piece of meat in the opposite direction behind the alligator, and it's not very often that it visits either, if it was a real problem I would build a wooden fence or just move.

They do? Did you even see that youtube video of a cat staring down an alligator? No, it seems that despite how fast they can react that many reptiles are slow moving and don't want to expend energy unnecessarily unless it's actually necessarily to get food. It's not that many alligators either, just a stray one from I guess a swamp about a mile away for some reason, and actually it's a couple stray cats that visit, not dogs, and it didn't seem particularly aggressive but I wouldn't really mess with it. But there's a lot of wilderness around so I guess the alligator doesn't actually have to worry about that much about getting run over or anything. Perhaps it smells something, though I don't know how good it's sense of smell is. It's actually quite odd to just one day find it on the property.

While I do have dogs that were passed down to me from previous owners, I also have a different type of relation with local animals, where they seem to rely on me occasionally for food and can come into my house without much trouble being caused, but are not a pet to anyone. Although, the alligator hasn't actually come into my house, but has been on my property, but it's more of a passive type, which is good. It's sort of fun having a bunch of animals around, there's often something different to see every two days.

Well, there's two people who have read the whole thing, yet they have disagreement on it, even about whether or not the events in them are real. Obviously, not everything makes sense in it if there is such disagreement.

Supernatural I think means "above" nature, as in something supernatural doesn't follow evolution or can't be explained by our current knowledge or doesn't have normal things that you would often find in nature, and faith in god isn't illogical, there's just not a lot of actual evidence to support the existence of god. For instance, lightning was considered super-natural before people started seeing patterns in it and eventually discovered it was plasma. But, I don't think we will be able to ever conclude any discoveries about god.

I am not familiar with wind farms causing global warming, do you have any good links? The first article wasn't very good, it simply stated "that" wind farms were being built, not how much CO2 they release or how many joules of energy it takes to power them. By that logic though I could argue nuclear reactors don't release a lot of energy simply because a majority of the country relies on coal instead, even though Japan recently almost had a meltdown. With wind farms, the issue isn't necessarily efficiency, it's coal and gas companies lobbying. It's not good to be too dependent on any one source.

I didn't read it out of order, I read parts of stories I felt I had time for, then moved to the next story the next day, and while I find the stories entertaining, some of it was just too entertaining, that kind of amazing stuff just doesn't happen in reality. We also can't verify if the stories in the bible are true, so I don't see how it counts as evidence, unless someone associated with it's makings has been alive all this time and could share what had happened. It's the same type of thing with other religions. Other religions like those of Native American tribes claim evidence that the knowledge has been passed down without altercation from generation to generation, yet predict things like giant turtles giving birth to the Earth. It's a similar thing with the Aborigines in Australia who claim they are not descended from ancestors in Africa, even though based on current evidence there's no other way they could have gotten there.

I have not read the complete bible, but I have read many parts of it. There are rational stories and rational events, some of which are even based on real events, but that's where I draw the line. There wasn't a boat big enough to house every species at the time, but the Black Sea has only very recently formed in geological time, less than a geological second maybe 12,000 years ago or so. People could have easily drawn "inspiration" from it, as it's existence was rather sudden over the course of a short period of time, but not the rest of the oceans and seas. That big of a boat? Not enough forest in that region for one. Talking snake? They don't possess oral commutative abilities. Sodom being destroyed in some way? Believable and it doesn't take a god to do that. But, how did Jonah not get digested by the whale's stomach acid? Even though I think some stories have rational morals, these events don't occur very often, I would say life has a greater chance of forming on a particular planet than some of the events in the bible. There aren't logical reasons for these things to happen other than "some kind of somehow omnipotent being made it happen", which isn't illogical, but there is little physical evidence to support this notion and the results cannot be duplicated it seems. Scientists and psuedo scientists are different, furthermore there is a difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory". Not only that, but religious scientists exist. Hardly, we are far from perfect in any way (and perfect is a relative term anyway), and that's what you get from randomly mutating DNA.

The original aspects of religion aren't "broken", and it's not illogical to like them, because despite all the bad rep by less than a 4th of the population of the planet, religions still have some good values. Without religion, humanity may have never formed a structured society in the first place, no one would see a reason to support each other. With religion, it's not so much about the stories as it is about what the founders of the religions meant. Jesus was most probably a reason person, but I don't think he wanted all gay people to be killed, he was a nice person, and he merely advocated being nice. What's so wrong about that? Besides, the things that make someone religious are present in atheists, such as consciousness, emotions, experiences, etc.

I can't point you to anything specific, but the person with the highest IQ in the world I still think is that janitor, and there's also this http://www.jeremyperson.com/chris-langan-the-worlds-smartest-man/ I wouldn't be too discouraged by IQ though, I've been on both sides, and IQ isn't useful if you don't have much to do with it, and anything that a person with an extremely higih IQ can do can be done by another person but with more conscious work and/or time put into the process.

What if the mosquitoes seem bad to everyone, because anything that eats them may get infected with malaria if their stomach acid doesn't destroy it fast, and the mosquitoes can transfer it to really any animal, and there seems to be many other bugs to continue the food chain, perhaps enough that if the mosquitoes were gone another species could rise of to take its place but not be so annoying. This is for a different topic anyway, this thread as about the ethical/logical question, it doesn't matter if it's a 10-20% false premise, it's about analyzing the ethical course of actions the human race takes.

What if the mosquitoes seem bad to everyone, because anything that eats them may get infected with malaria if their stomach acid doesn't destroy it fast, and the mosquitoes can transfer it to really any animal, and there seems to be many other bugs to continue the food chain, perhaps enough that if the mosquitoes were gone another species could rise of to take its place but not be so annoying.

It doesn't really matter really, we can decide whatever system we want to live in, but there's just no concise logical reason to not have high standards of equality other than some rick people would have to lose some money. It would stay that way for however long people would like it to or tolerated it. The things wrong with socialism and communism aren't the mathematical systems themselves (as ants show), but rather that they can be taken advantage of by a dictator. Over all of your posts I've seen it doesn't surprise me how ignorant (not stupid) you are about the world. Most people don'y say "I want equality" because they are slacking off, they say "I want equality" and are being severely taken advantage of. Do you honestly think thousands of people in Syria happened to not take advantage of some opportunity and at the exact same time? Or do you think it's more logical that they fight every day just to survive and that a dictator is shooting down anyone who opposes? With the US, it use to be something like that during the great depression. People worked hard every day, and got paid less than a dollar a day. How about you try working in a steel factory and seeing how much pay you demand. And this type of thing is still even going on in China with sweatshop workers and it's even worse in Africa where there's literally kids who pick through garbage to make a living because their country is so impoverished. And then there's that whole Rwanda thing where kids are forced into a vicious military and and hooked on crack to disorient them somewhat but keep staying them with the army. And when I said "self destructive" genes, I meant physically self destructive, as in you just happen to be born inside out or born with failed organs or etc. Considering free-will and the variety of thoughts and environments as well as learning capacity, there aren't many "self-destructive" metal genes that would make you not strive for something. And there's no reason to not pity something like that anyway. You also seem to fail to understand the principals of capitalism itself. Logically, everyone cannot be rich in capitalism. It is mathematically impossible in a capitalistic system. This means there is eventually a point to which even if you work, you will not make it because those slots have already been taken.

While I suppose it is theoretically possible to have a single organism as big as a biosphere, I'd think it would be kind of in-cohesive due to the tremendous reaction time delay at large distances. The idea about control seems a little too abstract. Wouldn't we constantly have an immune response? Wouldn't we eventually evolve to develop a resistance to it? How is this organism actually communicating? And why would it control the environment yet allow us to nuke it and have the capability to destroy the entire world a few times over (which we also came close to doing)? While it is possible individual ant and termites have consciousness, I don't see a way they could be physically connected to act as one organism seeing as how they are always moving around and away from each other.

It's not nessecerily based on a false premise. Let's say we brought dinosaurs back for a day, then killed them all. Any negative consequences? I'm sure it's possible to encounter circumstances where wiping out a species would have little to no impact upon the global environment.

But logically there would be a specific point at which three-dimensional space "loops around". I should be able to say "travel x distance from location A at angle theta before seeing location A and negative angle theta". Or at the very least there should be a specific point at which you can be equidistant from the Earths on either side of the loop, and if I shot a photon and it kept going in a straight line, it should travel finite distance before hitting the back of my head.

Change? No, it's the lack of change. If a photon get's emitted from a source, is the probability of detecting it the same from all frames of reference since energy can only be known after measurement? Does relativity just not apply to things when they exist in an unmeasured state?

THat article says that the description of a "field" for everything should be banned, not a wave. "the idea came along that in fact one could use quantum field theory for everything" then a couple lines down "I would like to urge that this description should be banned from physics, because a quantum field is not a quantized wave function" It almost sounds like he is saying we shouldn't say things are fields because they don't consider wave-like properties. Your defending quantum field theory yet the person you support doesn't seem to like it, it just goes to show my point that there are multiple ways to interpret what electrons and protons are, and all those views have their owns strengths and weaknesses. I just particularly like wave mechanics because it gives a better visual for "why" things actually are the way they are, and in many cases quantum wave mechanics can achieve similar results to other theories, at least experimental results, which is what really matters.

There's more efficient ways to heat water, which is coal and wind and pre-formed waterfalls.