/sci/ - Science & Math

Matter we can't see that must exist in some parts of the universe in order for our understanding of the universe to be correct.

Either we're missing something really important, our we're missing dark matter, which is our place holder explanation.

Matter that doesn't emit light that we can't see. The only way we have been able to accurately detect it so far is through gravitational lensing.

dark matter is matter that we don't actually see but we believe it exists because of how things that we can see move

not to be confused with antimatter which is way cooler

>>970739
And we think that dark matter creates electrons and positrons? Or what's that all about...

Its not magical stuff like you see in movies. Its just matter we know exists because we see it affecting stuff through gravity, but for some reason it doesn't emit radiation so telescopes can't pick it up directly.

100 years from now they'll probably look at dark matter the same way we think scientists in the 1700s thought that space was filled with ether.

>>970742
and what might antimatter be?

>>970743
no, positrons are anit-matter, not dark matter

>>970752
I'm probably be wrong, but i read somewhere that when dark matter particles collide positrons would be created?

If we take all ordinary matter, we cannot account for all the gravity we observe. We don't know where this extra gravity comes from so it's called dark matter. It is not known if it's matter or not, it's just extra gravity

>>970750
antimatter is an exotic form of matter that has particles which correspond to the particles we are familiar with on earth

if an antimatter particle meets up with its analogue, they annihilate and release tons of energy or some shit

>>970758
i know that when a positron collides with an electron two gamma rays are produced and the particles change somehow.

>>970772
well gamma rays are just electromagnetic waves anyway

the particles are annihilated out of existence

>>970739

So it's entirely rational apparently for dark matter to exist simply because it makes us right. But it's fucking stupid to believe in God because that would make us right?

>>970784
Well, no, because we actually have some evidence for dark matter.

>>970784

>placeholder

lol you just admitted your god is a placeholder as well.

>>970784
I'm pretty sure both could exist or not exist together. So take your butthurt shit outta here. There's no way to prove either one.

>>970793

Evidence != an observation.

I think it has something to do with overweight, ebony females.

>>970797

I was actually playing devils advocate with that question.

>>970805
seems more like you were playing God's advocate

>>970781
The particles simply become energy.

>>970781
So that whole "matter can not be created or destroyed" shit is wrong? According to this theory anyway...

>>970805

Then you got your answer anyway. The claim to a logical basis for dark matter is completely different from the claim for a logical basis for religion.

>>970808

Some people think that the Devil is God you know.

>>970811
Oh so the matter isn't destroyed it just becomes intangeble? So wouldn't that mean we could take energy and create matter?

>>970821
Sure why not.

>>970824

Because we don't know how

>>970813
>>970821
matter and energy are freely exchangeable
that's what E= MC^2 means

>>970813 big bang
>lots of energy converts to mass
>implying it's impossible for the opposite to happen

"Models predict that when dark-matter particles collide, they'll annihilate some of the time into electrons and positrons."

Can someone explain this quote to me?

>>970813
well you should take anything you read online with an appropriate bowl full of salt because I am not always as precise with my wording as I should be

in my understanding, conservation of matter is not actually a physical law; the annihilation of electrons and positrons converts them into energy which I guess is consistent because all mass has rest energy or some shit

so the best wording for the law would probably be "the sum of energy and mass is unchanging" or something

>>970837
it's nonsense

>>970815

I don't see how that's true. Because claiming it's perfectly logical for anti-matter to exist because it makes things right in terms of logic and then claiming God exists because the universe can't start from nothing is suddenly fucking stupid makes no sense to me.

I would like a well reasoned argument against that claim if you would like to have one.

Mind you, the definition of a God is still static for your consideration in the same way that the laws of physics still are. Believe it or not, a lot of Christians would like to become right rather than to just be right because we say so.

>>970813
All they physics you know is baby physics, just simple approximations and dumbed down shit they teach you in high school. Its pretty much all laughable.

>"matter can not be created or destroyed"

This isnt a real theory, just shit they probably tell faggy engineers, who are to stupid to do real physics.

Dark matter is said to exists becuase we need it for the consveration of angular momtum in space. Rotating galaxys and the like (it doenst have to do with just gravity).

The astronomers tried to modify the conservation of angular mometum to try and fit the universe (instead of the other way round), but it becomes inconsistant anyother way. And all the equations fuck up. Hence they keep the "dark matter" idea

>>970849
actually the correct reasoning here is akin to occam's razor; the existence of a god, particularly the Christian god, is far more complicated than it needs to be to satisfy the dark matter problem

it's like assuming 1000 new axioms in your mathematical system when you only need one

>>970849
Does the fact that we're already making antimatter on a regular basis change your outlook in any way?

guys come on

antimatter and dark matter are two completely different things

shit I knew this would happen

>>970831

Also, that equation was neither meant to be perfect, nor was it used to prove the existence of Alchemy. Even though Einstein looked into it, he made that equation to be a rough draft and guideline for energy in proportion to mass times the speed of light squared. It has many applications, but turning mass into energy is not one of them. Not to say that doing such a thing is out of the range of possibility. I hope we find out how.

>>970849
There are many observations and evidence that leads many to support hypothesis such as this one. But so far, there are no scientific pbservations that support or disprove the idea of God. So stop trying to argue God on a SCIence and math board.

>>970849

What part of "placeholder" did you not understand?

Religious people do not consider their god/gods to be placeholders. They consider them to be unchangeable fact.

>>970881
>It has many applications, but turning mass into energy is not one of them. Not to say that doing such a thing is out of the range of possibility. I hope we find out how.
Changing mass into energy is also something we're doing every day.

>>970881
You are a fucking moron

>>970837
anytime you collide normal matter together, you get a bunch of new particles and radiation. If Dark Matter is supersymmetric particles it could produce normal matter out of the collision. This would not be true if DM was, say, black holes (not a well supported theory, btw).

>>970878

One guy is asking if dark matter is anti matter, and he's obviously the OP, who obviously doesn't mean any harm and is just asking innocent questions.

Fuck off.

>>970881
>fission

>>970892
Actually I just read that one can create another, but I guess not. I never actually thought they were the same thing. I actually looked into this before asking here. Haha.

>>970900
I think the idea is that dark matter can be either matter or antimatter and we just can't tell because we can't see it

so naturally dark matter will occasionally annihilate itself

>>970870

Shit, I missed a typo there. I meant to talk about dark matter which was the main topic of conversation. Sorry for the confusion.

>>970875

You seem to not get where I'm coming from. The Christian God in terms of interpretation can be what ever the human mind thinks up in the world of pure beliefs. But for all we know, God may just be a subatomic particle that started everything, grew into something that was Godlike, and became what it is now.

Really, in the book of genesis, it only starts from the beginning of earth, and not the universe. So anything that happened before the start of our solar system is perfectly up to what ever factual information we conjure up. To tell you the truth, God could have turned into something very complicated over time, just like the rest of the universe did.

>>970881
>Also, that equation was neither meant to be perfect,
it's a true equation. "perfect" seems unrelated

>nor was it used to prove the existence of Alchemy.
The fuck? did I say or imply it was? no, I did not.

>but turning mass into energy is not one of them. Not to say that doing such a thing is out of the range of possibility.

the hell are on about?

>>970894

So apparently the splitting of atoms into individual protons and neutrons is now converting mass into pure energy?

>>970886

If you mean stuff like chemical energy, heat, kinetic energy and other shit like that, sure, but some people here were talking about turning mass into pure energy, which we don't do.

>>970912

You are talking out your ass and it is showing.

>>970912
pretty sure that version of "god" is inconsistent with the teachings of the bible, I mean sure you can stretch here and there and say some things are metaphor or parable but if you're going to do that you can always extend it to the point that god Himself is a metaphor and it kind of loses meaning

not really the point of the conversation though, to assume the existence of a god is wholly unnecessary when all we need is one aspect that a god would provide, namely a blatant violation of the laws of physics. It would be much more appropriate to assume an isolated violation than to assume an entire collection of violations that are associated with religious myth.

>>970881
fuck off troll

>>970913

Well i'm sorry, I was comment was based on how it seemed you think turning mass into pure energy was possible simply because of that equation.

we cant turn mass into energy for whoever said that. if we could do that we'd have no fucking energy crisis you dumbass

>>970925
>If you mean stuff like chemical energy, heat, kinetic energy and other shit like that, sure, but some people here were talking about turning mass into pure energy, which we don't do.
Particle-antiparticle annihilation is something we do in accelerators around the world every day.

>>970912
>But for all we know, God may just be a subatomic particle that started everything, grew into something that was Godlike, and became what it is now.

see pic

>>970925
Yes. The mass of the split atoms is less than the mass of the original atom + the neutron that split it. The "missing" mass has been converted into energy.

>>970925

Yes, mass literally disappears and large amounts of energy are released that equal the e in e=mc^c

>>970955
e=mc^2

fuck fuck fuck

>>970925
>the splitting of atoms into individual protons and neutrons is now converting mass into pure energy?

It is. At the same time the atom is split, an excess of pure energy is supplied - the fuel gets measurably lighter in weight (mass), and the water blanket around the reactor heats up. Matter is converted into energy at EXACTLY E=mc^2

>>970958
I was gonna say something but I didn't want to embarrass you

>>970912 The Christian God in terms of interpretation can be what ever the human mind thinks up in the world of pure beliefs

Not really. There are several things the bible says are quite certain about God and those are the focus of the criticism and resulting disbelief in the religion. Same with every other religion.

ie no one actually cares about "God is omniscient and omnipresent and etc". People care about obvious holes like the world being made in seven days, and all of the logical issues with the bible that it causes.

>>970934

I don't see how God starting off as something simple and then turning into something incredibly complex is such a violation. For all we know, there was no violation of physics about what happened, and such a thing like that happens every day, and we don't know how. Since it quiet probably fucking happened that way, I think it's something we should look into. Or we could be all wrong, and there wasn't a big bang at all, and something else happened that started the Universe or something. The point I'm trying to get acrossed is that anything is possible.

>>970938
it is. we have made antimatter and we have annihilated matter and antimatter. And even if we hadn't, it happens naturally anyway. But that's not what you said

>>970968

Actually, that whole seven days thing is quite up to interpretation.

Go back to /co/ please

>>970955 c^c

>>970969
dude you really should be clear what you're trying to accomplish I mean last thursdayism is one thing and the Christian god is another and you seem to be waffling in your position but honestly neither one is helpful to explain the situation for us

I mean you are such as the kid who is sitting in junior engineering class or some shit while everyone is talking about a problem and coming up with solutions and you're just not paying attention and then suddenly you're all "well what if we think of a different problem instead" I mean it is disrespectful dude like yeah there is a time and a place for philosophical discussion but it can't help us here you know

>>970960
>>970947

Well then I guess I stand pretty much corrected if you can give me source on that.

>>970975

No it isn't. You don't get it.

You can't say one part of the bible isn't literal. It means the entire thing isn't literal. Nothing that happened in the bible is definitely real, and important parts of Christianity require the bible to be a solid work (Everyone who follow "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" goes to heaven, for instance).

You don't get to cherry pick.

>>970989

That's a really big number.

>>970993
Google is your friend.
In particular any high energy lab, CERN, FermiLab, whatever.

There were once a group of scientists that tried to calculate the value of all the mass in the universe. They came upon a new problem, for their estimates to be correct, there would have to be much, much more matter in the universe than they originally thought. So instead of saying that their methods were wrong, they said their answer was right and that there must be something wrong with the universe.

SCIENCE!

>>970992

You know, you might be right that I was kind of a dick on hopping into a conversation that Didn't involve God and turned it into a religious discussion. But I have quite a different view on what a God is and people seem to call me an idiot for believing in one just because it seems that it's a simple explanation for something that seems like it's more complicated. This kind of gave me a slight sense of frustration over the fact that dark matter is a widely accepted belief because it explains gravity when put into an equation and you say the only evidence you have is the observation of distortion of light in space through a telescope. So I decided to ask that question so see what kind of answers I could get. I don't think I'll start a new thread else where though just because I know this board isn't a religion one.

Also, what's up with the last thursdayism thing is. I know what the meme is, but I don't think that I said applies to last thursdayism.

>>970993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Origin_of_the_active_energy_and_the_curve_of_binding_en
ergy

>>971033
But that's..that's not at all what happened.
y u do dis

>>971033
that doesn't follow dude

if their calculations were wrong then obviously their methods were wrong

you are misinterpreting the situation

>>970993
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/phys.htm

>>971009

So your saying that YOU get to pick and choose what's considered literal in the bible and what isn't and I don't?

Also, if you were a God, wouldn't you decide that the fuck a day is for yourself? The Bible has a lot of word play in it. Calling something a day to God would be like calling something a hard day's work for him. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

>>971050

OK then, I stand corrected. I'm OK with this.

>>970993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Origin_of_the_active_energy_and_the_curve_of_binding_en
ergy

>total rest masses of the fission products from a single reaction is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus

>>971059
man the point is that if any one thing can be considered a metaphor, then everything can be considered a metaphor because it's already been compromised

at that point "god" might as well be an analogy for the loving hearts of men or some shit because that is the same thing as a "day" being an analogy of eons

>>971059 So your saying that YOU get to pick and choose what's considered literal in the bible and what isn't and I don't?

I didn't say anything like that at all. What are you talking about?

>>971076

I think you're losing sight of what I'm trying to say.

Not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. Especially not genesis. If genesis was taken literally all the way through, then no one would consider Adam and Eve to be the first two people.

>>971089
it depends on who you ask, now doesn't it?
some do say that every word of the bible is literal

>>971039
>dark matter is a widely accepted belief

It's a highly regarded conjecture because it keeps holding up when subject to experimental tests against pre-defined experimental hypotheses

Having said that, there are other conjectures, notably Modified Newtonian Dynamics that also allow for similar results to the same experiments, and there is active discussion within the scientific community about whether dark matter really exists.

ie: Unlike evolution, the existence of dark matter is not regarded (yet) as a scientific fact. It will become so regarded if and when it becomes the only logically consistent explanation anyone can come up with that consistently explains the results of experimental observations.

>>971089
right so if not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally then why is it so important that this logically inconsistent god-figure be taken literally I mean you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument when you could just accept the bible as a collection of moral teachings rather than a mythology that actually happened

>>971082

Well you were saying that I wasn't allowed to pick and choose what I think is metaphorical in a book. Since you were saying that I HAD to think genesis was literal, it seemed to me you were picking and choosing what I get to think is metaphorical and what's literal. To tell you the truth, considering the Bible was written by flawed human beings, it would be retarded NOT to take the bible as completely metaphorical because people back then didn't know the shit we do now. Fire and Brim stone can be damned meteorites.

>>971089
How do you differentiate between allegories and other shit? If there's no clear definition, then the whole bible might just as well be an allegory.

>>971089

The entire basis for the bible is that it's the word of God. If part of it isn't literal then the entire thing isn't. The religion suddenly has no basis and the entire purpose of a book to explain the religion is useless if everyone changes whatever they want. It has no authority in that case.

>>971092

That's what I'm saying. The Bible is up for interpretation because people can think what ever they want. Yet I get called somebody who is afraid to be wrong because I take Genesis to be metaphorical.

>>971115
if you accept that the bible is metaphorical then why the hell are you trying to use it to explain dark matter man

come on what are you trying to do, or are you just wasting our time

>>971108 Well you were saying that I wasn't allowed to pick and choose what I think is metaphorical in a book

You aren't. The basis for Genesis is the same as the basis for all of the other books. Either it is all metaphorical or it is all literal.

>>970934
>pretty sure that version of "god" is inconsistent with the teachings of the bible,

First mention of bible ITT was not by CA tripfag. CA seems relaxed about bible. Bible not reqd for belief in God. We should stop slapping him with a book he didn't invoke.

>>971138
the dude should clearly define "God" if he is going to use that word in argument

it's not my fault that he went off on a tangential rant of sentimental nonsense about the complexity of simplicity and shit

>>971138 First mention of bible ITT was not by CA tripfag.

Yeah it was
>>970912

>>971102

No, I'm not mistaking moral teachings for a mythology that actually happened, because I know the definition of words can changed and that the bible is made up of a collection of different books written at different time periods. I came to the conclusion that a God exists because what the fuck else is the universe going to come from if it all started with nothing. To tell you the truth, I am still trying to find out what God is, and if one doesn't exist, I'm still ok with that, but we still don't know whether or not one does, so I think it's stupid to outright say that it's impossible for one to exist.

>>971109

That's entirely up to the reader.

>>971112

You haven't read anything I've wrote.

>>971148 You haven't read anything I've wrote.

What you wrote isn't of consequence. The bible is, point of fact, the basis of Christianity. In exactly the same way the American federal government derives it's basis from the constitution. Similarly, if everyone decided to use their own interpretation of the constitution and not follow the law the government wouldn't work, which would make the constitution useless.

Sorry, but it's really not up to opinion here. If you're going to believe part of the bible you have to believe it all, tit for tat.

>>971148
>moral teachings
>bible
lol

>>971126

But that's fucking retarded. How in the hell can you take all that literally and still believe it even in THOSE TIMES? I mean dude, even the catholic church and most church systems still take a lot of it to be metaphorical.

How can you possibly say what the premise.

>>971145

>ITT, people aren't paying attention to a fucking thing.
of the bible is when you didn't even write it?

>>971167 I mean dude, even the catholic church and most church systems still take a lot of it to be metaphorical.

Yeah, due to centuries of extreme ridicule and social unrest. Doesn't change the fact that the original theory and the reconciliation of "it's just metaphorical" present a completely illogical scenario.

>>971148
who gives a shit about what is POSSIBLE man I mean you can come up with some ridiculous shit that is POSSIBLE but no one gives a shit because it's fucking inconsistent with what we experience in everyday life I mean yeah pink butthole unicorns are technically POSSIBLE but I don't think they deserve to be acknowledged just because and really what are you trying to accomplish dude I mean is it

"God started the big bang" well whoop de doo I don't see how God is necessarily a prerequisite for creation or why the universe needs to be created in the first place

"Maybe the big bang is an illusion" yeah yeah and maybe none of us existed on wednesday but we think we did but it doesn't matter in the fucking slightest you know because here we are and everything functions as though the universe was here

seriously man you gotta have some respect because saying "God could have done it" in any arbitrary discussion is absolutely NOT helpful and you are kind of just being a douche

>>971164

What? How can you compare something like the Bible to the United States constitution like that?

Thats just plain troll right there. The constitution is actually has words with loose definitions in it like the word "arms" which was to mean what ever the hell is considered a weapon rather than your "guns" (you know, the ones with muscles on them).

Either way, you can't compare the Bible to the Constitution, that's just fucking stupid.

If you can stick a rational finger in your eye and rub a booger out of it, you must have the key to the universe right on top of your skin.

>>971148
Yeah when I was a kid til i was like 19 i tried to figure out if god existed and what that meant and how that affected any thing.
Then I realised we know enough about the universe to resing god if he exists to the most remote corners.
If you mean god is the laws of nature and that we are one with all the energy and matter and space fabric then i don't think anyone would argue that.

>>971183

Arms isn't a loose definition. It's a weapon. Something with the expressed purpose of killing something.

And the analogy is accurate, again sorry to burst your bubble.

>>971164
>If you're going to believe part of the bible you have to believe it all, tit for tat

Unreasonable. The first five books (Old Testament / Torah) are a different body of works. It would not (for example) be unreasonable to regard the Torah as 'allegorical truth' and the New Testament as 'allegorical nonsense' - Indeed, many modern nutcases regard the Torah / Old Testament as 'allegorical' and the New Testament as the literal truth.

>>971182

I didn't fucking say that the big bang was an illusion. I'm saying that we might be fucking wrong. Holy fucking crap I've had less trouble explaining computers to old people.

>>971167

Wow, not sure how that got mixed up.

>How can you possibly say what the premise of the bible is when you didn't even write it?

>>971201
>we might be fucking wrong
who. cares. Of course we might be fucking wrong. That's how science works but you don't go around saying "what if it's magic?" because that makes you a fucking retard

>>971197

Again, the basis is the same. The new testament is true "because it's god's word". Same to the old testament, all parts.

Furthermore, the old testament, especially the torah is the foundation for the new testament.

>>971213
>Furthermore, the old testament, especially the torah is the foundation for the new testament.

LULWUT?

>>971201
>How can you possibly say what the premise of the bible is when you didn't even write it?

This is sort of like saying that someone who critiques writing cannot tell what a writer's intentions were, which is clearly not the case.

>>971193

That would fit a lot of descriptions about him wouldn't it?

>>971194

Are you saying that the definition of arms has nothing to do with those things attached to your torso at all?

Either way, how is that analogy at all accurate. I mean it's accurate to say that if we took the Constitution metaphorically, it would mess up a lot of things because laws aren't meant to be metaphorical and we would have to rewrite the whole fucking thing. As for the Bible, taking it all as entirely metaphorical doesn't really change a whole lot in terms of faith for people.

>>971224

Jesus didn't just show up and there was a god, etc. It was supposed to be the end of one covenant and the beginning of a new. Everything that came before that point is still true. For the new testament to be true, this is required.

>>971225

Actually in a lot of cases, especially in stories with metaphors in it, you can say that you wouldn't understand the premise of it because some writers actually like to keep that out in the open for the readers to decide. That is actually one of the things that makes a good story you retard.

>>971227
>As for the Bible, taking it all as entirely metaphorical doesn't really change a whole lot in terms of faith for people
It changes quite a lot. A person who believes in actual sin and eternal punishment in hell has quite a different faith system than someone who believes it's just a story to teach you moral behavior.

>>971238

How in the hell can you say a concept can be taken literally?

>>971242
Are you saying that nobody believes in literal hell? Really?

>>971201
CA - you are saying that science might be wrong - for example about Dark Matter

Science continually acknowledges that it might be wrong, and operates around levels of confidence or certainty, derived from the evidential support for whatever.

It means nothing to say 'science might be wrong' cos, well, scientists go 'well, Duh!' - but it's PROBABLY right based on the available EVIDENCE

Saying 'science might be wrong about X' is entirely unrelated to whether God=Universe or whatever.

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers -- because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all.

>>971227 Are you saying that the definition of arms has nothing to do with those things attached to your torso at all?

No, clearly not. Go find a single legal expert that thinks otherwise.

>As for the Bible, taking it all as entirely metaphorical doesn't really change a whole lot in terms of faith for people.

Nope, as already stated. Many parts of Christianity absolutely require parts of it to be literal. I've read the bible front to back, have you?

I'm sorry, I really, really don't mean to sound elitist, but everything you have said is wrong. There is a serious logical paradox by taking parts of the bible literally and others metaphorically, because the religious basis for the entire work (or pieces of work, as has been mentioned) is the same. If Genesis is a metaphor then there is nothing preventing passage to heaven from also being a metaphor rather than a true story.

>>971242

I have a (serious) book recommendation for you.
"Do you think what you think you think" by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom

>>971261
Catholics believe in evolution and the big bang. They take the most of the bible as metaphore.
Hipocritical, yeah.

>>971235
>For the new testament to be true, this is required.
Logically, perhaps - (I'm not in a position to say) - but it is certainly true that there are Christians who strongly hold a different belief

>>971279
>>971281

I direct you guys to:
>>971175

Catholics don't even read their Bibles.

>>971291
most people who purport to be Christian have not read the bible

>>971250

I am saying that no one believes in literal sin because it sure as shit isn't tangible.

>>971254

Jesus Christ, that was taken out of context so much it doesn't even represent what I had written earlier to what i was trying to say. I said science could be wrong about the Big Bang, and I said that, to say that i could be wrong about God too. How did you possibly confuse that?

>>971261

Don't worry, you aren't coming off to me as being elitist, it's just that you're talking like the shit you say can't possibly be false. That's because there are some people with law majors that actually believe some laws aren't to be followed because people don't care about them, and that the word of law holds no ground, and even though that sounds fucking retarded on every level, it's still true that some people think that, so people thinking that the word "arms" means the ones attached to your body and that you only have the right to defend yourself with your hands isn't out of order for some people.

Also to say that many parts, rather than all of them require some parts of the bible to be literal in order to hold their faith together doesn't really tell me much other than the fact that some people can still see the whole bible OR some parts of it to be metaphorical to hold faith in God. Furthermore, you said they only require parts of it to be literal, further proving my point that people can pick and choose what ever the fuck they want to be real to them.

>>971303
Sin doesn't need to be tangible for it to be literal. Please mind the definitions of the words that you use.

>>971306

Either way, that doesn't change the fact that people can believe what ever the fuck they want.

>>971314
Please try to stay focused. The discussion was whether interpreting things literally significantly alters a person's beliefs.

>>971320

Alright, that's it, I'm going to bed. Goodnight everyone.

>>971303
You can't use the bible as a basis for beliefs if you just pick and choose what you believe.

>>971303
>that was taken out of context so much
This was me - And I've read all your posts. I am now confused. Please summarise what you are trying to say about Science & God.

>>970733
WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH DARK MATTER?

DARK MATTER = SCIENCE
RELIGION = BULLSHIT

>>971343
I'm not one to usually jump into these but...

Dark matter = theory
Religion = unsupported theory

>>971303 it's still true that some people think that, so people thinking that the word "arms" means the ones attached to your body and that you only have the right to defend yourself with your hands isn't out of order for some people.

Except that none of these people are the people that practice law, enforce law, write law, mediate through laws, or otherwise serve through laws. And such a mistake would grounds for removal from service. So no, the analogy is still accurate and I'm leaving this part of the discussion alone.

>Also to say that many parts, rather than all of them require some parts of the bible to be literal in order to hold their faith together doesn't really tell me much other than the fact that some people can still see the whole bible OR some parts of it to be metaphorical to hold faith in God.

AGAIN. The basis for the bible is that it is the word of God. In other words that is it's religious significance. The purpose of the bible is to explain Christianity and it's doctrine and it draws this authority from divine inspiration. If you discount this then it's just a book. There are people that do this for only parts of the bible, which is even more illogical.

>Furthermore, you said they only require parts of it to be literal, further proving my point that people can pick and choose what ever the fuck they want to be real to them.

No it doesn't. For the third time. The authority of the parts required for the basic function and structure of the religion is the same as the authority of all of it.

>>971349
AGREED!

>>971343 DARK MATTER = SCIENCE

Dark matter is made of knowledge?

Knowledge has a gravity well?

>>971332

OK fine before I go to bed.

What exactly I am saying about science and God is that it might just be possible for him to exist (get this) on accident starting with the big bang (if it really happened) and may have developed into a far more complex thinking being made from subatomic particles, or something else, which is entirely up to conjecture. And all I'm trying to say is that it's not so irrational to believe it took a God to create the universe when apparently it takes an invisible type of matter to make up the rest of the mass in our universe because gravity would be wrong with out it.

I don't have a very clear definition of what God is because I'm still trying to find out that for myself. I believe in him yes, but I want to know what he is, and I think he might be something real in the universe for the fact that you can't get something from nothing which is what people claim the big bang is.

So that's all I was originally trying to say, and then the whole thing got thrown out of proportion and off course.

>>971361
YOUR A FAGGY TROLL!
Engineering much?

>>971361
Good luck man i hope you find the answers to your questions.

>>971377
yeah? I hope he dies in a fire

>>971361
In which case, I didn't take you out of context. The difference between the two conjectures you set out is the EVIDENCE BASE for them, and the fact that the existence of dark matter is a conjecture subject to further experimental analysis, whereas the conjecture about God lacks BOTH an evidence base, AND any experiment to further confirm/deny it's factual truth.

>>971361
>something from nothing which is what people claim the big bang is
no they don't

It's possible that there is actually another sun and planet inside the earth. Why do you think lava comes out of the graound.
People from that planet came to our surface world through a hole in the crust which is why the mediterranean has that name. This is where they first came to our world. Think about it
medi = middle
terranean = earth

>>971361
You have no understanding of science at all.