Who has the burden of proof?

[RitalinOhD]

Yes, I would have loved searching the Internet for you, however, the flippant condescension that I have perceived in your post now prevents me from clicking on Google. I have given a good source in my post, why not try your luck and see if you can search for it . Politeness costs nothing and it encourages others to respond in like manner.

I really hope you aren't referring to the several instances of pure coincidence as your "source".

You'll have to excuse my "flippant condecension". It's sometimes hard to mask when people make ridiculous claims.

 

[Serenity7855]

I really hope you aren't referring to the several instances of pure coincidence as your "source".

You'll have to excuse my "flippant condecension". It's sometimes hard to mask when people make ridiculous claims.

That the earth was thought to be a sphere instead of flat, or that the atom was not the smallest particle were once thought to be ridiculous claims. Thank goodness we have not all closed our minds to new discoveries.

During the Last big tsunami no wild animals died. They had all left the area before it struck. The elephants all left two weeks before the tsunami took so many human lives. They all returned after it had all subsided. Quit miraculous, don't you think? Not such a ridiculous claim if you knew that and many thing like unto it, but I wouldn't mind betting that you didn't know that.

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 9.81 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force. What if it were 8, well then we would all explode. Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.

My source was Tom Shadyacs documentary, "I am" where these experiments are performed on camera as absolute proof.

 

[Serenity7855]

This statement is absurd. The definition of atheist makes no claim to knowledge. Saying one does not believe a god exists is in no way the same as stating one does not exist. So no, an atheist has no ethical, moral or spiritual burden to provide anything. I'm technically an atheist, and have never claimed no god or gods exist. I just have no reason to believe in one.
Granted, I am sure there are some atheists out there that may state none exist, but I would posit that they are a very tiny minority, as that is a silly claim to make.

And as far as being weird and unnatural, I think believing in something as unlikely as a supreme creator, in the face of zero empirical evidence is weird and unnatural. But I normally keep that opinion to myself.


More on topic, unless a person (atheist) definitively states there are no gods, there is no positive claim.

Are you actually saying that nothing exists unless it has an empirical measurement to it. That is, that God cannot exist because he cannot be define empirically, therefore, he does not fit into the scientific method. Now if I am right then that is weird. Ascribing science to me the new age God. So you do believe in a God then science? Perhaps you should have kept that opinion to yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

That the earth was thought to be a sphere instead of flat, or that the atom was not the smallest particle were once thought to be ridiculous claims. Thank goodness we have not all closed our minds to new discoveries.

During the Last big tsunami no wild animals died. They had all left the area before it struck. The elephants all left two weeks before the tsunami took so many human lives. They all returned after it had all subsided. Quit miraculous, don't you think? Not such a ridiculous claim if you knew that and many thing like unto it, but I wouldn't mind betting that you didn't know that.

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 8.91 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force. What if it were 7, then we would all explode. Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.

My source was Tom Shadyacs documentary, "I am" where these experiments are performed on camera as absolute proof.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Countless wild animals died in theTsunami, it devastated entire ecosystems. Humans can survive changes in gravity perfectly well - a formula one driver can experience eight times the normal gravitational force, and a pilot or astroaut can survive in zero gravity. You are talking utter nonsense.

 

[Sapiens]

That the earth was thought to be a sphere instead of flat, or that the atom was not the smallest particle were once thought to be ridiculous claims. Thank goodness we have not all closed our minds to new discoveries.

Yea, but you remain uninformed, and atom was, and still is the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, consisting of a nucleus containing combinations of neutrons and protons ...

During the Last big tsunami no wild animals died. They had all left the area before it struck. The elephants all left two weeks before the tsunami took so many human lives. They all returned after it had all subsided. Quit miraculous, don't you think? Not such a ridiculous claim if you knew that and many thing like unto it, but I wouldn't mind betting that you didn't know that.

It might be a problem in search of an explaination if it had happened ... but it didn't.

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 9.81 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force. What if it were 8, well then we would all explode. Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.

er ... force is Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration is measured in meters per second, not force. I have subject to as much as slight more than six gravities and as little as zero, and there was no miracle about it ... just machinery.

My source was Tom Shadyacs documentary, "I am" where these experiments are performed on camera as absolute proof.

What experiments ... there are no experiments in your post, in fact the only correct thing in your post is that the earth was thought to be a sphere instead of flat. Do you actually know which is correct?

 

[Serenity7855]

Yea, but you remain uninformed, and atom was, and still is the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, consisting of a nucleus containing combinations of neutrons and protons ...

You make this too easy for me. You are so eager to make me wrong that you make yourself look confrontational.

What Is the Smallest Thing in the Universe?
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
Date: 17 September 2012 Time: 07:51 AM ET

The answer to the enduring question of the smallest thing in the universe has evolved along with humanity. People once thought grains of sand were the building blocks of what we see around us. Then the atom was discovered, and it was thought indivisible, until it was split to reveal protons, neutrons and electrons inside. These too, seemed like fundamental particles, before scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made of three quarks each.
What Is the Smallest Thing in the Universe?

It might be a problem in search of an explaination if it had happened ... but it didn't.

Then someone got it mighty wrong. I am the messenger, not the message writer. I would not post it unless I knew, for a reasonable certainty, that it was true. I always have evidence to substantiate my claims, unlike yourself, who makes the claim and then when called on it, has to go searching for the evidence, then cannot find it. If it is anecdotal then I will say it is, if it is an axiom or metaphysical, I will state it, however, this was recorded fact.

National Geographic News: NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM/NEWS

Did Animals Sense Tsunami Was Coming?

By Maryann Mott
for National Geographic News
January 4, 2005

Before giant waves slammed into Sri Lanka and India coastlines ten days
ago, wild and domestic animals seemed to know what was about to happen
and fled to safety.

According to eyewitness accounts, the following events happened:

• Elephants screamed and ran for higher ground.

• Dogs refused to go outdoors.

• Flamingos abandoned their low-lying breeding areas.

• Zoo animals rushed into their shelters and could not be enticed to come back out.


The belief that wild and domestic animals possess a sixth sense—and know in advance when the earth is going to shake—has been around for centuries.

Wildlife experts believe animals' more acute hearing and other senses might enable them to hear or feel the Earth's vibration, tipping them off to approaching disaster long before humans realize what's going on.

The massive tsunami was triggered by a magnitude 9 temblor off the coast of northern Sumatra island on December 26. The giant waves rolled through the Indian Ocean, killing more than 150,000 people in a dozen countries.

The beach was one of the worst hit areas of the 500-square-mile (1,300-square-kilometer) wildlife reserve, which is home to a variety of animals, including elephants, leopards, and 130 species of birds.

Corea did not see any animal carcasses nor did the park personnel know of any, other than two water buffalos that had died, he said.

Along India's Cuddalore coast, where thousands of people perished, the Indo-Asian News service reported that buffaloes, goats, and dogs were found unharmed.

Flamingos that breed this time of year at the Point Calimere wildlife sanctuary in India flew to higher ground beforehand, the news service reported.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/16960960.html

er ... force is Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration is measured in meters per second, not force. I have subject to as much as slight more than six gravities and as little as zero, and there was no miracle about it ... just machinery.

I know this, however, gravitational acceleration is a component of force, as force equal mass times acceleration, where the acceleration is gravitational acceleration and the mass is air. Atmospheric pressure.

Yes, and you were probably in a pressurised suit as well. Take away atmospheric pressure and the internal pressure, within the body, becomes greater then it's surrounds, it will explode in an attempt to attain entropy. . It is standard physics. Increase the pressure over long periods of time and we will be crushed. I am not a scientist, much like yourself, so I do not use scientific terminology, however, anybody with an ounce of intelligence can plainly decipher what point I am making. This is not a scientific experiment, it is a debating forum. You are not king of the castle when you have a little scientific knowledge, so the need for the sanctimonious condescension is unnecessary.

Atmospheric pressure is the force per unit area exerted on a surface by the weight of air above that surface in the atmosphere of Earth (or that of another planet). In most circumstances atmospheric pressure is closely approximated by the hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of air above the measurement point. On a given plane, low-pressure areas have less atmospheric mass above their location, whereas high-pressure areas have more atmospheric mass above their location. Likewise, as elevation increases, there is less overlying atmospheric mass, so that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing elevation. On average, a column of air one square centimeter in cross-section, measured from sea level to the top of the atmosphere, has a mass of about 1.03 kg and weight of about 10.1 N (2.28 lbf) (A column one square inch in cross-section would have a weight of about 14.7 lbs, or about 65.4 N).
Wiki

What experiments ... there are no experiments in your post, in fact the only correct thing in your post is that the earth was thought to be a sphere instead of flat. Do you actually know which is correct?

If you were to watch the documentary, that I referred to, as the source of my evidence, instead of being preoccupied in trying to belittle and discredit Christians, then you just might learn something, not only about how spirit communicates with spirit but how to rid yourself of the poor attitude.

So, when you say that "in fact the only correct thing in your post is that the earth was thought to be a sphere instead of flat" you were not being absolutely truthful.

May I just point out for you that intentional plagiarism is against forum rules.

You have written the following

.... the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, consisting of a nucleus containing combinations of neutrons and protons

The following web page seems to have written the same - . http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atom

the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, consisting of a nucleus containing combinations of neutrons and protons

You have joined the quote with your own words to give the impression that it is you who is saying it. That, my friend, is dishonest and deceiving of someone who claims the knowledge of a scientist. To top it off, and validate the deception, you have not sourced it or given any indication that you copied and pasted it. Sadly, the result is distrust in the authenticity of your post. You are not being a very good ambassador for your group, called atheists, are you. Should we take this action as a general moral unaccountablility trait of all atheists or just you.

 

[Skwim]

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 9.81 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force. What if it were 8, well then we would all explode.

According to my rough figures, if the gravitational force was 11 m/sec.² one would only weigh 6% more, and if it was 8 m/sec.² one would only weigh 9% less. Hardly enough to crush anyone or make them "explode." AND BTW, please explain why would one explode if the gravitational attraction was less. If this was truly the case then astronauts would be exploding left and right as they distanced themselves from Earth's gravity.

Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.

OR, considering all the planets in the universe that are incapable of sustaining life, you could think of Earth's life sustaining parameters as "about time." Look into the "Drake Equation."

 

[samosasauce]

This is why I rid myself entirely of burden of proof by simply stating "I don't care"

 

[Serenity7855]

According to my rough figures, if the gravitational force was 11 m/sec.² one would only weigh 6% more, and if it was 8 m/sec.² one would only weigh 9% less. Hardly enough to crush anyone or make them "explode." AND BTW, please explain why would one explode if the gravitational attraction was less. If this was truly the case then astronauts would be exploding left and right as they distanced themselves from Earth's gravity.

OR, considering all the planets in the universe that are incapable of sustaining life, you could think of Earth's life sustaining parameters as "about time." Look into the "Drake Equation."

Not only would they explode, their blood would boil. That increased pressure of 9% could result in the failure of internal organs. Why not just admit that the phenomenon is miraculous instead of wriggling and squirming with pernickety rebuttals that have no efficacy, they are fallacious evasions of the fact that it is a miraculous universal law, designed and augmented by a Supreme being.

Discovery Channel

Outer space is an inhospitable place for humans -- space suits protect us from that hostile environment, guarding us from radiation and regulating our oxygen and temperature. If an astronaut were to venture beyond his or her spacecraft into space without wearing the specially designed suit, here's what would happen:

1. Loss of consciousness would ensue due to lack of oxygen.
2. Body fluids, including blood, would boil and subsequently freeze.
3. Internal organs would swell because of the boiling body fluids.
4. The astronaut would suffer the effects of extreme temperatures that range from 248 degrees Fahrenheit (120 C) to -148 degrees Fahrenheit (-100 C).
5. The spacewalking astronaut would be exposed to both charged particles and damaging rays coming from the sun, as well as radiation.
6. Fragments of dust or rock traveling at high speeds or debris from spacecrafts or satellites could strike the astronaut.

Thank you for the link to Drakes Equation. It is very interesting and intriguing.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Are you actually saying that nothing exists unless it has an empirical measurement to it. That is, that God cannot exist because he cannot be define empirically, therefore, he does not fit into the scientific method. Now if I am right then that is weird. Ascribing science to me the new age God. So you do believe in a God then science? Perhaps you should have kept that opinion to yourself.

This coming from someone who asserts such certainty based on nothing more than a 2000 year old book. Perhaps you should take your own advice with your opinion. Show me one single piece of evidence your God exists and I'll consider taking you seriously.

Also, show me where I stated that a God cannot exist, under any specific qualifier. I believe I stated that I've never made that claim, in the very paragraph you quoted. Reading comprehension is apparently not your friend.

 

[Serenity7855]

This coming from someone who asserts such certainty based on nothing more than a 2000 year old book. Perhaps you should take your own advice with your opinion. Show me one single piece of evidence your God exists and I'll consider taking you seriously.

And cast my pearl before swine to be trodden under foot, "Au contraire, mon frère" that is something that I will not be doing. Besides, did you know, there is no evidence to prove that God exists, however, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you know that things that require evidence occupies but just a small part of a world full of things that need no evidence. Evidence is for science and close minded atheists, not societies.

Also, show me where I stated that a God cannot exist, under any specific qualifier. I believe I stated that I've never made that claim, in the very paragraph you quoted. Reading comprehension is apparently not your friend.

My goodness me, I did not say that you actually said anything. I asked you if that is what you believed. I said:

"Are you actually saying that nothing exists unless it has an empirical measurement to it. That is, that God cannot exist because he cannot be define empirically"

That is a question, not a statement of fact. You really should take your own sarcastic slur and read for comprehension.

By the way, your insult, on a book that is very close to my heart, is expected and rejected. You know that it hurts Christians to have their sacred text maligned, which is the exact reason why you do it, just like a troll would.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The answer to all of your question is faith.

Then the answer is utterly useless. Faith means nothing other than accepting things without evidence, and living by a creed based solely on credulity. Any God who relies on faith over reason is either a fool or a monster.

We are here to live by faith. If God started to perform miracles willy nilly then we would all know that he lives so faith would no longer exist and the trial of our faith would cease to exist.

And that would be nothing but a good thing. Reliance on faith is no different to relying on blind ignorance - any reasonable God should not encourage it, but should encourage skepticism and reason. In fact, many religious texts say that that's precisely what God asks their followers to do, and yet when it comes to miracles it suddenly becomes all about faith.

Well, I'm not remotely interested in faith. If that's enough for you, then fine, but if all you have to back up your assertions with is faith then I don't see how any kind of reasonable debate, discussion or dialogue can be opened between believers and non-believers.

I do not believe that God performs miracles but that he authorises them. Not everything that appears to be a miracle is a miracle.

So how do you distinguish between a miraculous event and a non-miraculous event? I would have thought the distinction is implied.

Faith healing is exactly what it implies, the healing by faith. It is down to the faith of the healer and that of the receiver together that causes the healing by drawing on the powers of heaven. Faith can cure cancer but it is our faith that does most of the work.

If that's true, then I see no reason why healing by faith couldn't be demonstrated under reasonable experimental conditions.

If you believe in it enough, and if all around you have that same faith, if it be Gods will then you will be cured. I have witnessed three terminally ill friend of mind beat it miraculously to the astonishment of all of us but in particular to his physicians.

Can you provide a source? You don't have to provide it if you feel it's too personal - but then again, why would you even tell me of this event if it's too personal to share the details? Are you prepared to demonstrate that this event occurred?

The internet is full of miraculous examples of modern day miracles. The Catholics keep strict records on them. The Mormons have books written by their leaders with documented evidence of supernatural cures. You just have to look in the right place. You will not find the truth in an article full of bigotry and lies.

So when an article is written explaining how and why miraculous claims can be frauds or the result of people simply being wrong its "articles full of bigotry and lies", and yet religious organizations keeping records of supposed events that are specifically tailored to support their particular belief structure cannot possibly be deceptive or untrue on any level?

Sorry, no. I could just as easily search for any of the countless numbers of supposed alien abductions or autopsies. There are many supposed accounts of people being reincarnated or experiencing past lives. Countless sightings of bigfoot. I'm not interested in accounts - I'm interested in facts. If there are any stories with can be factually corroborated, I'm interested and would be willing to have a look at them. Anything else is totally useless to me.

Her is a few short stories to give you an idea of modern day miracles.

Again, I'm sorry, but I'm only interested in facts - not stories. I appreciate you going to all the effort of finding these stories, but the effort seems disproportionate if I'm expected to go through each and every story you can give me and find the flaws or lack of corroboration. Could you instead, perhaps, give me your best and most corroborated example?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. If the miracles don't happen in a controlled scientific environment then people such as yourself are not compelled to believe. Where are the higher beings compelling belief? They are fortifying believers. That's the difference I was talking about.

So no accounts exist of non-believers being compelled to believe by experiencing miraculous events? I've heard loads of them, personally.

Again the other point I brought up. Can you imagine all the ramifications of a large scale miracle? No you can't. So you can't say it's a good thing.

Yes I can. Knowledge of the existence of God (along with validation of that God's specific teachings or doctrines) would be a good thing, and knowledge of a reliable, non-invasive method of curing life-threatening diseases and serious debilitation (aside from amputation, apparently) would absolutely be a good thing. I CAN say it's a good thing, because it obviously would be.

I don't follow how countless lives would be saved and millions improved? (are you thinking we could do miracles as a general course?)

Why not? If miracles occur by faith and the will of God, if everyone (or, at least, most people) were made certainly aware of God's existence and the power of miraculous healing, those people would possess more than enough belief to qualify for miraculous healing. And even if they didn't, their knowledge of God's existence would still most likely lead them onto a path that would result in a best-possible-afterlife scenario - be it heaven, reincarnation or whatever God's chosen reward is.

In fact there might be wisdom in you being able to call BS. I think the goal of Self-Realization and liberation comes through spiritual effort. We are not to be given proof but have to find truth for ourselves.

So, would you agree with my belief that it is foolish to believe in something for which there is insufficient objectively verifiable evidence?

My more Hinduish perspective: At some point we will all ask what or if there is a goal to all this? We will wonder about the universe and what we are. The Self-Realized Hindu masters will tell us they know the Truth through direct experience and we can get there ourselves. We can ignore for perhaps many lifetimes but we will never find the eternal peace they talk about. At some point we will be dissatisfied with the world (like Buddha) and will accept what these masters say as only a possibility. Through the spiritual practices they teach we will gradually experience greater peace and well-being and think we may be on to something. Eventually we will become One/God/Brahman and realize our sense of separateness was illusion (Maya in Hinduism).

Sure, if you like. Meanwhile, from my skeptical agnostic atheist perspective: there are no masters who can tell us any more about the spiritual nature of the Universe than we ourselves can. Nobody is qualified to tell me what spiritual "truth" is or even means, and they're all just making stuff up while assured beyond certainty of their own knowledge - for which they have no solid foundation other than a personal delusion. Demonstrably the best way for obtaining any kind of truth in this world (be it spiritual, if you wish to call it that, or otherwise) is through rigorous examination, experimentation and reasoning in line with the scientific method, and no other method has ever come close to it.

 

[Parsimony]

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 9.81 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force. What if it were 8, well then we would all explode. Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.

Woah, wait, what? We would not explode from reduced gravity. Our bodies are held together by covalent chemical bonds and van der Waals forces, not gravity. The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth and the astronauts who went there did not explode. Nor did they explode in the micro-gravity of space on the way there.

Take note that exploding due to a lack of external atmospheric pressure is not the same as the idea of exploding due to a lack of gravity. People don't even explode in a vacuum in the first place. Accidents and experiments have demonstrated this. It does cause the body to expand greatly and render the person unconscious, but they can fully recover if the exposure is of short duration. The concept of exploding in a vacuum is a misconception popularized in fiction which does not hold up in reality.

Please also take notice that it would take a lot more gravity than normal to crush a human. Pilots in fighter jets can experience 9 times Earth's gravity during maneuvers and they most certainly are not crushed. An untrained person may lose consciousness under such forces, but crushed they are not.

 

[outhouse]

for which they have no solid foundation other than a personal delusion

Looking in a mirror I see.


You dont have the biblical education to talk down to anyone.

 

[outhouse]

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 9.81 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force. What if it were 8, well then we would all explode. Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.



.

This is just the prefect factual evidence, you place god in the gaps of your kowledge.

Your so ignorant about science, you dont have a clue about the scientific reality you lie in. So god is your only hope. Why keep repeating ancient mens mistakes???


Because we evolved on a planet with a stable gravitational force, we are suited for said gravity. No need to invoke your mythology

 

[Serenity7855]

Woah, wait, what? We would not explode from reduced gravity. Our bodies are held together by covalent chemical bonds and van der Waals forces, not gravity. The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth and the astronauts who went there did not explode. Nor did they explode in the micro-gravity of space on the way there.

This is ridiculous. Why don't you just do a little research on the subject before you post. Not being funny, but seriously. I have been here where I thought I knew what I was talking about and made an idiot of myself but for a little time spent in research.

Let's dismiss the silliness of using the terms, covalent chemical bonds and van der Waals forces. Said to demonstrate that you have knowledge of that which you speak. Totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed, which gave it away. Atomic bondings are not impenetrable. They are easily broken depending on the type of bonding. They could never prevent Thermodynamics from bring equilibrium into force.

It is basic Thermodynamics. Put an inflated balloon in a low pressure environment and the Balloon will eventually deflate until both the outside and inside pressure are equal. Everything tends to entropy. It is just a naturalistic fixed law of the universe. Do the same with our bodies and the first thing that will happen is your blood will boil breaking those bondings straight away and your inners will spew out through the breaks.

The next one is a monumental case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are totally ignorant to the facts. The astronauts were in atmospheric pressure from the time they left earth until they got back. Either in their spacesuits or in the shuttle they never experienced anything but atmospheric pressure.

Take note that exploding due to a lack of external atmospheric pressure is not the same as the idea of exploding due to a lack of gravity. People don't even explode in a vacuum in the first place. Accidents and experiments have demonstrated this. It does cause the body to expand greatly and render the person unconscious, but they can fully recover if the exposure is of short duration. The concept of exploding in a vacuum is a misconception popularized in fiction which does not hold up in reality.

Gravitational acceleration is a component of atmospheric pressure. Increase it and atmospheric pressure will also be increased. They are inseparably connected.

Vacuum, are you for real? A vacuum is an empty space in which there is no air or other gas : a space from which all or most of the air has been removed, pressure is not a function of a vacuum. You can be crushed in a vacuum.

Please also take notice that it would take a lot more gravity than normal to crush a human. Pilots in fighter jets can experience 9 times Earth's gravity during maneuvers and they most certainly are not crushed. An untrained person may lose consciousness under such forces, but crushed they are not.

Pilots are in high gravitational acceleration for very short periods of time. For gravity to result in crushing the human body will take a longer period of time. Stick someone in a gravitational accelerator on full power for the weekend and see what you will find on Monday morning.

Look, I am not a scientist, I only took physics to "A" level, but this stuff is fundamental physics.

 

[Serenity7855]

This is just the prefect factual evidence, you place god in the gaps of your kowledge.

Your so ignorant about science, you dont have a clue about the scientific reality you lie in. So god is your only hope. Why keep repeating ancient mens mistakes???


Because we evolved on a planet with a stable gravitational force, we are suited for said gravity. No need to invoke your mythology

You will probably be unaware of this, but, I, and my intellectual capabilities is not up for debate. Please direct your rebuttals to my post and not my person. It is impolite and rude

Our internal organs would fail under any longterm fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. We would need long periods of evolution to adapt to pressure changes by which time we would all be extinct.

 

[Skwim]

This is ridiculous. Why don't you just do a little research on the subject before you post. Not being funny, but seriously. I have been here where I thought I knew what I was talking about and made an idiot of myself but for a little time spent in research.

Actually, it's not ridiculous at all, but right on the mark. However, because I lack the inclination to go into the reasons why your understanding is so scrambled, please continue to believe whatever you wish.

Have a good day and play fair.

 

[George-ananda]

So no accounts exist of non-believers being compelled to believe by experiencing miraculous events? I've heard loads of them, personally.

Individuals, yes, but we were talking about undeniable large scale miracle or scientifically proven miracle. There has never been a miracle claim that someone like yourself could not call BS. The higher beings take smaller bites with their miracles and I'm saying there is a wisdom there.

Yes I can. Knowledge of the existence of God (along with validation of that God's specific teachings or doctrines) would be a good thing, and knowledge of a reliable, non-invasive method of curing life-threatening diseases and serious debilitation (aside from amputation, apparently) would absolutely be a good thing. I CAN say it's a good thing, because it obviously would be.

First thought is there are a 1,001 different beliefs out there. Whatever happens will not jibe with someone's worldview.

I think we as a whole are progressing in our view of the universe. Just in my lifetime I know 'new agey' things are much more generally known and not considered just 'crazy' stuff as it was in my youth. I think we are moving to greater collective understanding but wisdom dictates it happens inch by inch and not dramatically.

Why not? If miracles occur by faith and the will of God, if everyone (or, at least, most people) were made certainly aware of God's existence and the power of miraculous healing, those people would possess more than enough belief to qualify for miraculous healing. And even if they didn't, their knowledge of God's existence would still most likely lead them onto a path that would result in a best-possible-afterlife scenario - be it heaven, reincarnation or whatever God's chosen reward is.

I believe miracles require the will of intercessory agents. Their will is governed by a wisdom greater than mine. And again i think the main point of it all is not physical health (we will grow decrepit and die anyway) but the real goal is finding truth through spiritual efforts. And even many atheists are making progress to that goal with humanistic compassion.
.

So, would you agree with my belief that it is foolish to believe in something for which there is insufficient objectively verifiable evidence?

As a student of the many types of paranormal phenomena, I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe the physical realm is not all there is. What is this 'more'? The masters of the Hindu tradition have given me the most reasonable and believable worldview I have heard after objectively considering all evidence and argumentation from all sides of the issue. I don't have proof but know their path brings me more peace and well-being. Someday I may EXPERIENCE the Truth.

Sure, if you like. Meanwhile, from my skeptical agnostic atheist perspective: there are no masters who can tell us any more about the spiritual nature of the Universe than we ourselves can. Nobody is qualified to tell me what spiritual "truth" is or even means, and they're all just making stuff up while assured beyond certainty of their own knowledge - for which they have no solid foundation other than a personal delusion.

I believe that we are not just physical beings and that the more advanced beings experience and sense beyond the physical and many dedicate themselves to teaching.

Demonstrably the best way for obtaining any kind of truth in this world (be it spiritual, if you wish to call it that, or otherwise) is through rigorous examination, experimentation and reasoning in line with the scientific method, and no other method has ever come close to it.

Then you will have a physical-only view of the universe using this method. But from my objective study of paranormal phenomenon and from my close observation and study of the eastern masters, I believe you will be cheating yourself of knowledge of things that really matter.