Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?

[HikerGuy83]

From his own link (that he didn't read):

"In reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions in classical mechanics. The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity under the principle of mass–energy equivalence, which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity"

Actually, it's what I said early on.

It just flew (along with the reason I brought it up) right over your head.

I read the link.

You don't read posts.

Yes, you are grasping.

 

[HikerGuy83]

And this is your typical MO. Let's wonder around until we find questions we can't answer so you can claim your point is valid.

How can I test my idea....we already stated it was a concept.

Whose laws of conservation.

Nuclear energy violates the conservation of mass "law". So, context is important.

I guess that didn't make it into the bible.

Just to refresh your memory.

You were the one insisting on some form of conservation.

I pointed out that the law of the conservation of mass is violated because mass is lost as energy is created in a nuclear reaction.

Only to point out that such requirements on your part for some form of "conservation" require defintion.

Just like the mathematical formulation we call entropy isn't universally applicable.

 

[Crepitus]

No. Religion requires belief in the absence of proof.
Magic is "proof" that produces disbelief.

So splitting the red sea, was it magic or religion?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Because it isn't, not the way you think.

Dumbass. It is....as I just demonstrated.

As I stated in my original post....it is limited. So context is necessary.

At which point, you proceeded to demonstrate that you really engage in a reasonable conversation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dumbass. It is....as I just demonstrated.

As I stated in my original post....it is limited. So context is necessary.

At which point, you proceeded to demonstrate that you really engage in a reasonable conversation.

I am not interested in your tantrum. Sorry. It's an old assumption from classical physics, and a useful principle only in those contexts. It's no longer a fundamental law of physics. Thank you, Einstein.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So splitting the red sea, was it magic or religion?

So, given your limited number of choices I'll ask.

Are you saying that under no circumstances would it be possible to part the red sea and not violate any of the laws of physics ? In other words, you can for all your wisdom given your few years on this little spec of a planet in the outer rings of one of billions of gallaxies.....you know for sure there are no circumstances under which this could occur ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So splitting the red sea, was it magic or religion?

Nether. It was myth.

 

[Crepitus]

So, given your limited number of choices I'll ask.

Are you saying that under no circumstances would it be possible to part the red sea and not violate any of the laws of physics ? In other words, you can for all your wisdom given your few years on this little spec of a planet in the outer rings of one of billions of gallaxies.....you know for sure there are no circumstances under which this could occur ?

I asked a simple either or question.

You obfuscated.

Why?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I asked a simple either or question.

You obfuscated.

Why?

Conservation of Dignity

The answer is embarrassing

 

[HikerGuy83]

I am not interested in your tantrum. Sorry. It's an old assumption from classical physics, and a useful principle only in those contexts. It's no longer a fundamental law of physics. Thank you, Einstein.

Because I just demonstrated that I used it appropriately, I am throwing a tantrum.

It has always only been useful in those contexts as I have repeatedly stated.

My original comment held that nuclear reactions violate it......

BTW: There are no fundamental laws of physics that are not under scrutiny.

At one point it was taught that protons, neutrons and electrons were the smallest particles in existence. We've since blown that out of the water.

Again, to my point.

Give me your address and I'll send you some binoculars. You might be able to see the point as it flys about 2 miles over your head. You'll have a better chance.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I asked a simple either or question.

You obfuscated.

Why?

I challenged your either or. I am asking if those are the only two choices and you are saying that is no third, fourth or fifth choice. I get that Wichita lacks a lot of things....I just didn't think it was this bad.

 

[Crepitus]

I challenged your either or. I am asking if those are the only two choices and you are saying that is no third, fourth or fifth choice. I get that Wichita lacks a lot of things....I just didn't think it was this bad.

Wichita has a surplus of religious whack-jobs.

Are you trying to say Moses used science? Technology? Ancient alien Theorists?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Are you trying to say Moses used science?

I am asking you if you are claiming there is no science that could have produced that result.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am asking you if you are claiming there is no science that could have produced that result.

See if you can make your point in your own words all by yourself.

 

[HikerGuy83]

See if you can make your point in your own words all by yourself.

The question makes the point.

Sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to control the conversation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The question makes the point.

Sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to control the conversation.

What is your point? State it. Sack up. Or don't. You're free to embarrass yourself all you like. I have no say in that.

 

[HikerGuy83]

What is your point? State it. Sack up. Or don't. You're free to embarrass yourself all you like. I have no say in that.

Really, you have no say in anything.

Do you not understand the question ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really, you have no say in anything.

Do you not understand the question ?

That's nice.

So what is your point? Can you not state it?

 

[HikerGuy83]

So splitting the red sea, was it magic or religion?

This feels like an argument from ignorance in the making. I am just trying to figure it out.

Even if someone answered magic, just what are they saying ?

If they said it was "religion", that seems the same as magic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ZPE