Strange

Alfred.

How do you know that? As you don't have a clue what the models are, how they are derived or how they are tested, you can't possibly know what is or is not taken into account. Just because you are completely confused by your misunderstandings, doesn't mean that everyone else is equally confused. No, it is two different events: the thing happening and the thing being perceived. (And, of course, if it perceived by N observers, then it is N+1 events.) Perhaps one reason you are so confused by this is because you do not have access to any sort of formalism to help you rationalise any of these things.

Just on the "heating soup" aspect, it is worth noting that thick liquids do not readily allow convection, which is why it can burn on the bottom but still be cold elsewhere. This can be quite dangerous, because you can get a build up of steam at the bottom, held in place by the thick, heavy liquid. Then, when you go to stir it, you release the bubble of gas and hot soup flies out at you. So you should always keep stirring such soups.

Currently, we don't know what the overall topology of the universe is. It is generally thought that it doesn't have an edge, but it could be infinite or finite. In the first case, you will just keep going forever. In the second case, you could end up where you started (but you might not). Imagine you set off on a trip round the Earth. If you happen to travel on a great circle (the equivalent of a straight line) such as the equator, then you will end up where you started after one circle. But you might go round on a crazy spiral. Again, no one knows. (In other words: good questions!) There are theories where space is "quantized" at some level. But there are theories where it isn't ...

Not very practical then. Even if the universe were infinite (and that is not clear) gathering its entire mass in one place would (a ) be difficult and (b) leave you nowhere to teleport to.

Interesting. This seems a bit like the way the Toxoplasma gondii parasite can affect behaviour. This suggests (reinforces) that out thoughts, behaviour, personality and sense of self is due to more than just the "conscious" part of our brain, and more than just our brain. Our entire physiology including sense receptors, and the endocrine system, and symbiotic flora & fauna, and pathologies all contribute to our mental process, memories, personalities and our sense of being individual consciousnesses.

By changing the subject, I assume you are agreeing that the irreducible complexity argument is false. Thank you for that. No need to apologise for introducing it. I will assume you didn't realise it had been solidly refuted. But there is no reason to infer design on that basis. So the rest of the argument is moot.

Our models now are better than models in the past (if they weren't they wouldn't be the current models). And they will continue to be refined in future as we improve our understanding and gather more data. Why is this question even relevant? I don't think any of your examples have been unacknowledged. But as they are all the same thing and just highlight your lack of understanding, it gets a bit tedious trying to explain the same thing over and over. To someone who is unwilling to listen. Gosh. I bet no one has ever thought of that before. Like people firing a gun. Or NASA planning space missions.

That is a sort of arithmetic series. It is also trivial; it is what we call "counting". Why would you use this as an example of a computing task? It doesn't even require a computer.

I would not keep using XP. As it is no longer supported it will have unpatched vulnerabiltiies. Upgrade to Windows 7 (if you can still find a copy).

I agree. It isn't clear that there is a hard distinction between the "conscious" mind and the rest of the brain. And if only the conscious mind were "you", who runs the rest of it?

I tend to agree. Especially as the thread was created by someone who makes rather incoherent arguments based on fallacies and non-sequiturs. Someone has already made that point. I fail to see why it is relevant. I fail to see why that is relevant. No one said that. Quite the opposite, in fact. It may be historical, but it is not a history book. It has been discussed there. I don't know why it is the subject of a thread about "logic". What!? That is almost completely a work of fiction. Dan Brown's version is shorter but made a better movie. There may have been a few true facts buried in there. But I don't know how you would sort them out without some serious research. Huh!? That is a bit rich from someone complaining about the level of logic in the thread.

No there aren't. All of these "irreducible" systems exist in simpler forms. He doesn't seem very credible: https://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/the-case-against-lee-strobel/

No he isn't. He is not assuming ALL will come true. And he is not assuming they will be 100% accurate. (Although, so far, it seems they have been reasonably accurate.)

If you are referring to fiveworlds, you will come to realise that about 90% of his posts are utter crap. But occasionally he says something quite informative. On the other hand, I don't know what you mean by this. What does "broken down into ones" mean?

But not when it comes to the existence of Jesus. But their is no independent corroboration of these sources. (Which were obviously chosen because they support the preferred narrative.) Of course. But you seem to be conflating two different things: the existence of Jesus and whether he actually performed miracles. Both of those could be investigated historically to see if there is any (independent) evidence. It appears there isn't.

But the answer is the same whether you made the decision "consciously" or not. Same brain. Same biochemical processes. Same person. Are we automatons?

Of course. It doesn't make any difference if you accelerate really slowly or really quickly. It still takes the same amount of energy.

This entire post is just a confirmation of your ignorance. We can know. They are not guesses. You really ought to find out a tiny bit about how science works. Of course it can be checked. That is what makes it science. (As opposed to the uninformed "philosophy" of some random guy on the Internet. Not "we all". Just you. Does anyone think that? Why even say it? Scientists have far better access. Apart from the technological tools (optical and radio telescopes, satellites, etc.) they have a good understanding of the underlying physics and chemistry, well-tested models for the evolution of the universe, the lifecycles of stars and galaxies, etc. You have nothing. (Except a "philosophy".) You cannot see an inconsistency in the model because you don't have a friggin clue what the model says. I don't know what your area of expertise is, so lets try this analogy. Imagine you are building a house. Your architect comes up with a design which is both practical, aesthetically pleasing and meets all necessary building regulations/codes. Your structural engineer calculates (using models!) the sizes of the beams needed, the loading on the roof, etc. The project manager works out the number of people, the scheduling of resources and so on to meet the timescales. You are quite happy with all this. Then some random guy walks in the door, looks at all the plans and sweeps them on the floor. "I know nothing about building but I have a philosophy. These people are just guessing. I'll build your house in a week for one tenth of the price." Who do you believe: the experts who have done the calculations. Or some idiot with a "philosophy"? You don't have a model. And you don't have the knowledge or skills to evaluate the scientific models. I think I will put you back on ignore. I find it too depressing that people can be so proud of their ignorance and so desperate to hang on to it.

There are plenty of people who know a lot about how animals communicate. Just because you don't, there is no need to project your ignorance on to everyone else. Then don't present it as fact. And show us the evidence that supports this hypothesis. Why would you say that? Have I or anyone else ever said that? Is this just yet another strawman?

That is always the problem in such discussions. If "you" didn't make the decision, then who did?

Wrong. I'm not sure why you would connect an ohmeter across this. You may have damaged it (the meter and/or the power adaptor). Did you intend to measure the voltage, to see if it is really 16V? If so, you might get misleading results as the voltage may rise when their is no load.

I believe that is possible, in principle, because the gravitational field itself has energy. I'm not sure it can happen in practice. As far as is known, black holes always contain the mass that created them. I don't think anyone thinks that singularities actually exist.

So it isn't precise at all, then. It is just a vague unsupported idea. On the other hand, we already have a precise mathematical theory that predicts precisely what will happen in every possible variation of this experiment. Why do you think your vague speculation is an improvement on that? But apparently he has never heard of the theory of relativity. That seems unlikely. Please answer the question: Are you claiming that a single electron will generate an interference pattern? Yes or no. Please answer the question: What role does this camera play in your experiment? Just repeating that there is a camera does not explain the purpose of the camera. OK. Please provide a reference to support your claim that photons and atoms can be entangled. Please answer the question: What is "distance creation"?

A combination of theory and observation. It is a shame you are unwilling to learn about any of this stuff, it is really fascinating. Did they? Which galaxies? They would but it isn't. The fact that galaxy clusters are held together by gravity has absolutely nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. Because ... wait for it ... they are held together by gravity.