-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?
- Thread starter DawudTalut
- Start date
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Because of the placebo effect. If we "want" something to be that way and if there is no independent evidence besides our own experiences then our own experiences will be biased. No matter how much I hope for something it doesn't make it so outside of myself. And even within myself it is limited.
You say faith in god starts with hope in god. This means the root for your belief in god is not in evidence but in self delusion. Or at least what is the known beginning of self delusion.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
According to who?
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
No, of course not. I couldn't care less about astronomy and astrophysics. My knowledge of physics has given me an adequate understanding of astronomy to suite my needs. If I should desire a greater understanding of astronomy and astrophysics, I'll continue my studies. But at this point, as I said, I couldn't care less.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Babies don't walk until after they crawl.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should speak with a gardener.
dust1n
Zindīq
Obviously.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Do you have a shred of human decency?
Are you here just to troll?
If you have a specific question you would like me to answer with regard to your gardening, pose the question, and I will see if I have an answer for you.
But perhaps you should not do this on this thread, and show some respect for the topic of this thread.
dust1n
Zindīq
The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.[28] The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is known as accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar. Through direct contact, these grains formed into clumps up to 200 metres in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of ~10 kilometres (km) in size.[29] These gradually increased through further collisions, growing at the rate of centimetres per year over the course of the next few million years.[29]
The inner Solar System, the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals that formed there could only form from compounds with high melting points, such as metals (like iron, nickel, and aluminium) and rocky silicates. These rocky bodies would become the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). These compounds are quite rare in the universe, comprising only 0.6% of the mass of the nebula, so the terrestrial planets could not grow very large.[10] The terrestrial embryos grew to about 0.05 Earth masses and ceased accumulating matter about 100,000 years after the formation of the Sun; subsequent collisions and mergers between these planet-sized bodies allowed terrestrial planets to grow to their present sizes (see Terrestrial planets below).[30]
When the terrestrial planets were forming, they remained immersed in a disk of gas and dust. The gas was partially supported by pressure and so did not orbit the Sun as rapidly as the planets. The resulting drag caused a transfer of angular momentum, and as a result the planets gradually migrated to new orbits. Models show that density and temperature variations in the disk governed this rate of migration,[31] but the net trend was for the inner planets to migrate inward as the disk dissipated, leaving the planets in their current orbits.[32]
...
At the end of the planetary formation epoch the inner Solar System was populated by 50–100 Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos.[39][40] Further growth was possible only because these bodies collided and merged, which took less than 100 million years. These objects would have gravitationally interacted with one another, tugging at each other's orbits until they collided, growing larger until the four terrestrial planets we know today took shape.[30] One such giant collision is thought to have formed the Moon (see Moons below), while another removed the outer envelope of the young Mercury.[41]
One unresolved issue with this model is that it cannot explain how the initial orbits of the proto-terrestrial planets, which would have needed to be highly eccentric to collide, produced the remarkably stable and near-circular orbits the terrestrial planets possess today.[39] One hypothesis for this "eccentricity dumping" is that the terrestrials formed in a disc of gas still not expelled by the Sun. The "gravitational drag" of this residual gas would have eventually lowered the planets' energy, smoothing out their orbits.[40] However, such gas, if it existed, would have prevented the terrestrial planets' orbits from becoming so eccentric in the first place.[30] Another hypothesis is that gravitational drag occurred not between the planets and residual gas but between the planets and the remaining small bodies. As the large bodies moved through the crowd of smaller objects, the smaller objects, attracted by the larger planets' gravity, formed a region of higher density, a "gravitational wake", in the larger objects' path. As they did so, the increased gravity of the wake slowed the larger objects down into more regular orbits.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
The inner Solar System, the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals that formed there could only form from compounds with high melting points, such as metals (like iron, nickel, and aluminium) and rocky silicates. These rocky bodies would become the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). These compounds are quite rare in the universe, comprising only 0.6% of the mass of the nebula, so the terrestrial planets could not grow very large.[10] The terrestrial embryos grew to about 0.05 Earth masses and ceased accumulating matter about 100,000 years after the formation of the Sun; subsequent collisions and mergers between these planet-sized bodies allowed terrestrial planets to grow to their present sizes (see Terrestrial planets below).[30]
When the terrestrial planets were forming, they remained immersed in a disk of gas and dust. The gas was partially supported by pressure and so did not orbit the Sun as rapidly as the planets. The resulting drag caused a transfer of angular momentum, and as a result the planets gradually migrated to new orbits. Models show that density and temperature variations in the disk governed this rate of migration,[31] but the net trend was for the inner planets to migrate inward as the disk dissipated, leaving the planets in their current orbits.[32]
...
At the end of the planetary formation epoch the inner Solar System was populated by 50–100 Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos.[39][40] Further growth was possible only because these bodies collided and merged, which took less than 100 million years. These objects would have gravitationally interacted with one another, tugging at each other's orbits until they collided, growing larger until the four terrestrial planets we know today took shape.[30] One such giant collision is thought to have formed the Moon (see Moons below), while another removed the outer envelope of the young Mercury.[41]
One unresolved issue with this model is that it cannot explain how the initial orbits of the proto-terrestrial planets, which would have needed to be highly eccentric to collide, produced the remarkably stable and near-circular orbits the terrestrial planets possess today.[39] One hypothesis for this "eccentricity dumping" is that the terrestrials formed in a disc of gas still not expelled by the Sun. The "gravitational drag" of this residual gas would have eventually lowered the planets' energy, smoothing out their orbits.[40] However, such gas, if it existed, would have prevented the terrestrial planets' orbits from becoming so eccentric in the first place.[30] Another hypothesis is that gravitational drag occurred not between the planets and residual gas but between the planets and the remaining small bodies. As the large bodies moved through the crowd of smaller objects, the smaller objects, attracted by the larger planets' gravity, formed a region of higher density, a "gravitational wake", in the larger objects' path. As they did so, the increased gravity of the wake slowed the larger objects down into more regular orbits.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
According to the definition of the terms. It is not a matter of whether I say so.
What do you understand a scientific theory to be?
I'm not sure I have a specific question. More like general interest. It is highly applicable. I'm currently working on composting and adding humus to the soil.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
What does that have to do with what we were talking about?
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Hopefully, it is a theory that is based on current knowledge.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
That's good. I've been composting for a several years now, and have my compost divided into separate piles by age. The oldest compost is humus, while the newer organic matter of my compost is, well still in the process of decomposing.
It goes beyond that. As I said, it must be both testable and succesfully tested.