Strange

1. You missed the sarcasm / satire. 2. You may be believe he is the son of god, but there obviously isn't any evidence for that. There can't possibly be. That would require evidence for the existence of god and some sort of paternity test (does god even have DNA?) But not based on evidence. Prometheus's point is that alone can assert (or attest) anything is true. It doesn't make it true. EVERYONE claims their own religion is the true one and the others are false. Why is yours any different.

But is that relevant? Science doesn't usually deal with equations that are meaningless

That's OK. There is no rational reason to believe in such a thing either way.

Sorry. I guess I am being slow but I have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying that the equation is dimensionally correct but meaningless?

You can say this, it doesn't make it true. You are making an illogical argument. You are saying (with no evidence) that the universe cam from nothing, and then asking what caused it. There is no evidence that there was "metaphysical nothing" before the universe. There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing. There is no evidence that the universe was caused. 1. There is no reason at all to think that the universe originated in that situation. 2. Even if it did (it didn't) then there is no reason to think it requires a "transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property". Nope. No cause, no embodied mind. (And what would t be embodied in before the universe existed?)

He wasn't born until after the (supposed) death of Christ. So he wasn't recording events he witnessed. He was writing down the same stories that are in the Bible. Not evidence. It saddens me that your faith is so weak you have to search for false evidence to bolster it.

Can you explain what odd thing happened? I missed it. In most languages, that is not an equation. In languages where it is an equation, the behaviour would depend on the semantics of the language. It might be an error, for example. Obviously not.

OK. If we only discuss that metaphysical meaning then this obviously has nothing do with cosmology, so we can drop that line of discussion. Now what do you want to discuss about your "metaphysical nothing"? To be honest, there doesn't seem much to say about it. Maybe nothing to say.

There is historical evidence for the existence of the Buddha as a real person. Why not? Doesn't show it is true either. Surely, faith doesn't depend on evidence. And, arguably, shouldn't depend on evidence. The believed it. It doesn't mean it is true. Like Judaism? There is historical evidence for some things in the Jewish religion. There is no historical evidence for that. Not even that he existed. The Romans were pretty good at record keeping but there is no record of his existence, life, trial or death. There are contemporary records of this.

No it doesn't. That is (yet another) Creationst lie. Those guys are worse than Trump. https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/ As you have already been told this is not true, why are you repeating it? This is typical Creationist behaviour: keep repeating the lie, even when people show it is not true. No necessarily. Words have multiple meanings. Get over it. (And get a dictionary.) No. And, no.

Why do you think it is important? Wow. Words have a range of different meanings. Shocking. Why not? An absence of mass and energy sounds like a good use of the word "nothing" to me. You might walk into a room which has walls, ceiling, air, carpet, paintings on the walls, etc but no furniture, and say "there is nothing in here". Not exactly a shocking use of the word. There is no such theory. There is some speculation, but that's all. There is no evidence for such a thing. There is no evidence for any such event.

There are similar amounts of evidence related to the historical aspect of other religions. But like all religions, yours and is largely myth, for example: the existence of god, the existence of Jesus, miracles, Genesis, etc

What about it?

But if they don't then it probably isn't really race, it is some other (genetic) classification.

7 apples = 3 K bananas where: K = 2.333 apple banana-1

Which solves the problem because it is no longer an equation

When you quantify (you know, as in science) those differences, you find they don’t have much correlation to people’s concept of “race”. So it turns out that race isn’t often (scientifically) useful.

Exactly. Once you put it in terms of moles, you have mass-energy on both sides.

For those outside the US, acetaminophen = paracetamol.

But we are not talking about classical physics

No, but it requires that they appear on both sides. You have mass-energy on the RHS but not the left.

No it doesn't. You can't use that to find out how much a hydrogen-chloride molecule weighs. It is dimensionless. (The number of molecules/atoms.) But there is a mass deficit from the LHS to the RHS. I have no idea what the other thread is, so I don't know where I am going wrong / what I am letting myself in for!

If it is in the Daily Mail, then there is a good chance it is not true. I would look for a fact-based source if I were you. You know, a newspaper or a science website.

The only reason that is not dimensionally consistent (I assume you are referring to the energy term?) is because it is incomplete (one of the things that dimensional analysis can show). You have only shown the heat released, not the masses (and temperatures) of reagents and products. I suppose this shows that equations can still be useful, even when incomplete.

Interesting.... (I think ) I only have a couple of comments: Shouldn't GMP be Greatness Making Property? (sorry, am pedantically editing a long document) Do we know that there are GMPs that are inversely related? (I am not too convinced by moral goodness vs potence.) I assume it only takes one such pair to confirm your conclusion? And another thought: can we really have an objective ordering of GMPs? What one person/culture thinks is better might be considered worse by another. But, again, I guess you only need some objective GMPS, rather than all of them being objective.