|
Post by Vegas on Feb 24, 2017 16:28:20 GMT
So.. Your faith in something that hasn't been proven yet overturns their faith in something that hasn't been proven yet?? Got it. It's not faith at all. You see we have this thing called evidence of a planet with elements and conditions that can sustain life, and we have evidence of other planets with similar elements and conditions.
You don't seem to know what faith is. Do you see any evidence of a universal intelligence? Because we haven't discovered that at all.
You can see the difference right? Right?
Faith is believing that something exists or will happen because you have a certain amount of certainty that it exists or will happen... That hasn't happened, yet... You are only certain that it will. YOU don't know what faith is. And you still only have faith that it will have the devastating effect that you think it will have.
|
|
chasallnut
Sophomore
@chasallnut
Posts: 506
Likes: 158
|
Post by chasallnut on Feb 24, 2017 16:35:18 GMT
and at least one of which has liquid water
The discovery sets a new record for greatest number of habitable-zone planets found around a single star outside our solar system. All of these seven planets could have liquid water – key to life as we know it – under the right atmospheric conditions, but the chances are highest with the three in the habitable zone.
Further observations will not only help determine whether they are rich in water, but also possibly reveal whether any could have liquid water on their surfaces. The mass of the seventh and farthest exoplanet has not yet been estimated – scientists believe it could be an icy, "snowball-like" world, but further observations are needed.
www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-telescope-reveals-largest-batch-of-earth-size-habitable-zone-planets-around
Whilst this is indeed a fantastic discovery you should really stick to the facts. At this time liquid water on any of the planets has not been determined. I sincerely hope it is but you are guilty of embellishment.
It's not embellishing, I've read that elsewhere I've read that elsewhere and regardless they are nearly certain. Also as you point out here, it's quite possible that all of them could have it, and EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T!!!
WATER IS THE MOST COMMON MOLECULE IS THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
This isn't news.
I've read that elsewhere
Cool, I just used NASA website.
regardless they are nearly certain
So it is not proven. Not a fact.
Why so defensive. Just stick to the facts and chill out.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 24, 2017 18:16:27 GMT
Faith is believing that something exists or will happen because you have a certain amount of certainty that it exists or will happen... That hasn't happened, yet... You are only certain that it will. YOU don't know what faith is. And you still only have faith that it will have the devastating effect that you think it will have. No, faith is believing something with no evidence. You're ignoring the evidence part here. There is no evidence of a god. There is evidence of numerous other planets with similar elements and conditions.
It's not faith at all. It's evidence. It's amazing the you're trying to compare the two.
Please give me any evidence for a god, that is as good as finding planets with near equal conditions to Earth.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 24, 2017 18:18:53 GMT
I've read that elsewhere
Cool, I just used NASA website.
regardless they are nearly certain
So it is not proven. Not a fact.
Why so defensive. Just stick to the facts and chill out.
I didn't say it was a fact. Didn't say it was proven either.
The only defensive people are religious people who keep shoving their imaginary god, into an imaginary corner.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 24, 2017 18:30:34 GMT
Faith is believing that something exists or will happen because you have a certain amount of certainty that it exists or will happen... That hasn't happened, yet... You are only certain that it will. YOU don't know what faith is. And you still only have faith that it will have the devastating effect that you think it will have. No, faith is believing something with no evidence. You're ignoring the evidence part here. There is no evidence of a god. There is evidence of numerous other planets with similar elements and conditions.
It's not faith at all. It's evidence. It's amazing the you're trying to compare the two.
Please give me any evidence for a god, that is as good as finding planets with near equal conditions to Earth.
I never equated the two as being the same. What other people use as evidence for God... are just things that you don't use as evidence... NOT THAT I AM SAYING THAT THEIR EVIDENCE IS REAL... just that what they have as evidence is what they base their faith on. YOU DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS... You only have evidence of other planets... THAT is what you have to use to base your faith that life will be discovered on. At this point - It's faith. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 0:04:26 GMT
I never equated the two as being the same. What other people use as evidence for God... are just things that you don't use as evidence... NOT THAT I AM SAYING THAT THEIR EVIDENCE IS REAL... just that what they have as evidence is what they base their faith on. YOU DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS... You only have evidence of other planets... THAT is what you have to use to base your faith that life will be discovered on. At this point - It's faith. Nothing more. No people don't base faith on evidence. Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence.
Perhaps you don't realize that we already know that it's possible for life to form naturally, as so we're just looking for the places where that is most likely to occur. I mean we both understand that they haven't found any so if that's you're only point, then ok.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 0:05:27 GMT
I never equated the two as being the same. What other people use as evidence for God... are just things that you don't use as evidence... NOT THAT I AM SAYING THAT THEIR EVIDENCE IS REAL... just that what they have as evidence is what they base their faith on. YOU DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS... You only have evidence of other planets... THAT is what you have to use to base your faith that life will be discovered on. At this point - It's faith. Nothing more. No people don't base faith on evidence. Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence.
Perhaps you don't realize that we already know that it's possible for life to form naturally, as so we're just looking for the places where that is most likely to occur. I mean we both understand that they haven't found any so if that's you're only point, then ok. But I'm not using faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 0:10:07 GMT
ahem. moving on...
what interests me is just how long those planets have existed. as evolution happens over millions of years, depending on how old the system & planets are could either be good or bad (too young, & if any life is found it will be essentially primordial // too old, & life may have already died out for some reason, similar to how Mars once potentially had an atmosphere & water).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 25, 2017 0:20:17 GMT
Habitable Zone exoplanets are the atheist equivalent of Pearly Gates. Keep hope alive. It's fascinating news, just silly to attach an extraterrestrial component to it. Good one!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 25, 2017 0:42:56 GMT
So with the announcement of 7 Earth like planets orbiting the white dwarf star Trappist-1, at least 3 of which are in it's habitable zone, and at least one of which has liquid water, all within just 40 lightyears of Earth, the message is clear. Planets that can sustain life are everywhere.
How do theists react to this? I addressed this question on Reddit. It is a serious mistake to assume the Bible or any other scripture is a comprehensive book of science. It has been obvious for a long time they are not. They deal with special topics like ultimate purpose, ethical systems, recommended attitudes in relationships and such things given that we do not have a comprehensive book of science. The Bible doesn't even claim to be a comprehensive book of religion. Prophets and/or the Holy Spirit were sent for that. Of course there are large numbers of people who yet believe the bible is a comprehensive book of anything despite the fact it never claims to be. The poor tend to be poorly educated. Those people might be shocked. The shock to religion is one thing though. What about the shock to politics? We already have a strain on democracy caused by the limited understanding of too many people not keeping up with life's deeper complexities. It is not just that they do not understand their own religion. They do not understand science as much as they are fond of it. You will pardon me if I do not believe everything I see in the news. I usually suspend belief until I see exactly how the information was obtained. The news often does not include that necessary information. I do not know how many other planets in the universe might sustain life. I suspect they are too far away for it matter anyway.Now answer this. What sort of ridiculous buffoon complains about "mistakes" made by theists as if science not the least connected with any religion never made any mistakes? Yes, I know it's a loaded question, but it was too much fun to resist. The Catholic Church (of all "theists") was wrong about geocentrism for 111 years, but it was another 115 years before "scientists" finally gave up on spontaneous generation.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 25, 2017 0:59:04 GMT
I am breaking a rule to correct your lie Sam. Galileo was not imprisoned. At best, he was under house arrest in perfect comfort, and not for sayingf the earth was the centre of the Universe - but for other offences. Of course he wasn't sentenced for saying the earth was the centre of the universe you silly cow,that wasn't what OSV said,try reading what people actually write. That's exactly what OSV claimed, as your own quote of him shows. Try not to be such a rage boy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 1:05:28 GMT
so. i guess no one actually wants to talk about the discovery that was made. how, disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 1:30:47 GMT
I never equated the two as being the same. What other people use as evidence for God... are just things that you don't use as evidence... NOT THAT I AM SAYING THAT THEIR EVIDENCE IS REAL... just that what they have as evidence is what they base their faith on. YOU DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS... You only have evidence of other planets... THAT is what you have to use to base your faith that life will be discovered on. At this point - It's faith. Nothing more. No people don't base faith on evidence. Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence.
Perhaps you don't realize that we already know that it's possible for life to form naturally, as so we're just looking for the places where that is most likely to occur. I mean we both understand that they haven't found any so if that's you're only point, then ok.
People have faith in thing because of evidence all of the time.. It what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis... You test what you believe will happen based on evidence that precedes your test. The Scientific Method couldn't exist without faith. And you're still skirting the fact that you only have faith that life exists off of this planet... and that's all you have... Granted, it's not a misplaced faith... but IT IS FAITH NON-THE-LESS.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 1:53:33 GMT
I addressed this question on Reddit. It is a serious mistake to assume the Bible or any other scripture is a comprehensive book of science. It has been obvious for a long time they are not. They deal with special topics like ultimate purpose, ethical systems, recommended attitudes in relationships and such things given that we do not have a comprehensive book of science. The Bible doesn't even claim to be a comprehensive book of religion. Prophets and/or the Holy Spirit were sent for that. Of course there are large numbers of people who yet believe the bible is a comprehensive book of anything despite the fact it never claims to be. The poor tend to be poorly educated. Those people might be shocked. The shock to religion is one thing though. What about the shock to politics? We already have a strain on democracy caused by the limited understanding of too many people not keeping up with life's deeper complexities. It is not just that they do not understand their own religion. They do not understand science as much as they are fond of it. You will pardon me if I do not believe everything I see in the news. I usually suspend belief until I see exactly how the information was obtained. The news often does not include that necessary information. I do not know how many other planets in the universe might sustain life. I suspect they are too far away for it matter anyway.Now answer this. What sort of ridiculous buffoon complains about "mistakes" made by theists as if science not the least connected with any religion never made any mistakes? Yes, I know it's a loaded question, but it was too much fun to resist. The Catholic Church (of all "theists") was wrong about geocentrism for 111 years, but it was another 115 years before "scientists" finally gave up on spontaneous generation. Mistakes by theists have nothing to do with it. It's that theism has no basis in reality. There isn't a debate, because theism has no starting point, no basis.
The difference as an atheist is, I'm perfectly willing to, and indeed have, adapted my perception of reality as I've learned, but theists no matter what they learn, always think it comes back to a god.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 2:00:38 GMT
People have faith in thing because of evidence all of the time.. It what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis... You test what you believe will happen based on evidence that precedes your test. The Scientific Method couldn't exist without faith. And you're still skirting the fact that you only have faith that life exists off of this planet... and that's all you have... Granted, it's not a misplaced faith... but IT IS FAITH NON-THE-LESS.
No it isn't faith. If you had evidence for something, you don't need faith. Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence. When you have evidence, you have a reasonable expectation, not faith.
The scientific method has nothing to do with faith. That's the silliest statement I've ever heard. It's purely about testing and demonstration. A hypothesis isn't faith either. It's an idea based on observation that you test to see if it actually works.
I don't have faith that life exists off of this planet. I have an understanding of how life can form naturally, an awareness of general planetary conditions that requires, and the knowledge that near countless planets exist in such conditions. Do I know for sure? Of course not. But being aware of those conditions has nothing to do with faith. Also my life isn't based on it, or dependent on the answer. You can write it in bold all you like, but faith has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 3:12:01 GMT
People have faith in thing because of evidence all of the time.. It what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis... You test what you believe will happen based on evidence that precedes your test. The Scientific Method couldn't exist without faith. And you're still skirting the fact that you only have faith that life exists off of this planet... and that's all you have... Granted, it's not a misplaced faith... but IT IS FAITH NON-THE-LESS.
No it isn't faith. If you had evidence for something, you don't need faith. Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence. When you have evidence, you have a reasonable expectation, not faith.
The scientific method has nothing to do with faith. That's the silliest statement I've ever heard. It's purely about testing and demonstration. A hypothesis isn't faith either. It's an idea based on observation that you test to see if it actually works.
I don't have faith that life exists off of this planet. I have an understanding of how life can form naturally, an awareness of general planetary conditions that requires, and the knowledge that near countless planets exist in such conditions. Do I know for sure? Of course not. But being aware of those conditions has nothing to do with faith. Also my life isn't based on it, or dependent on the answer. You can write it in bold all you like, but faith has nothing to do with it.
Writing it bold doesn't make it true... It just is... And repeating "Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence" a thousand times doesn't make that true... 'Cause it's not really... You can have faith based on observation and evidence... Yeah... You have an observation. You decide that that observation has further repercussions in the real world... You hypothesis what those repercussions are.. depending on how certain you are about those repercussions, you test that hypothesis with the faith that your hypothesis will be proven true. It's faith. And... Rewording reality to make yourself feel smart doesn't change reality.
It's big and green... It must be true.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 5:33:44 GMT
Writing it bold doesn't make it true... It just is... And repeating "Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence" a thousand times doesn't make that true... 'Cause it's not really... You can have faith based on observation and evidence... Yeah... You have an observation. You decide that that observation has further repercussions in the real world... You hypothesis what those repercussions are.. depending on how certain you are about those repercussions, you test that hypothesis with the faith that your hypothesis will be proven true. It's faith. And... Rewording reality to make yourself feel smart doesn't change reality.
It's big and green... It must be true. No, a hypothesis is an idea you test to find out if it's true. You don't have faith in it.
You really need to learn these words and come back.
It's really not worth discussing anything if you're just going to intentionally confuse yourself. I'm honestly done with this thread. I guess you're just one of those people who like to have long pointless discussions. IDK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 5:36:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 5:44:05 GMT
Writing it bold doesn't make it true... It just is... And repeating "Faith is what you use when you don't have evidence" a thousand times doesn't make that true... 'Cause it's not really... You can have faith based on observation and evidence... Yeah... You have an observation. You decide that that observation has further repercussions in the real world... You hypothesis what those repercussions are.. depending on how certain you are about those repercussions, you test that hypothesis with the faith that your hypothesis will be proven true. It's faith. And... Rewording reality to make yourself feel smart doesn't change reality.
It's big and green... It must be true. No, a hypothesis is an idea you test to find out if it's true. You don't have faith in it.
You really need to learn these words and come back.
It's really not worth discussing anything if you're just going to intentionally confuse yourself. I'm honestly done with this thread. I guess you're just one of those people who like to have long pointless discussions. IDK.
SOMETIMES: YOU DO. Demanding that everything is black and white... So you can decide that those who actually see the gray are stupid... only proves that you are what you claim to rally against: A judgmental moron blinded by his own faith.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 5:45:13 GMT
so. i guess no one actually wants to talk about the discovery that was made. how, disappointing. It is pretty friggin' amazing.
|
|