McBell
Unbound
from the PoV of those in the vehicle, yes.
However, if the vehicle is going the speed of the light, would not the light from the headlights be going twice the speed of light for those on the ground?
-
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!
Your best argument that god exists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
However, if the vehicle is going the speed of the light, would not the light from the headlights be going twice the speed of light for those on the ground?
outhouse
Atheistically
Nope. Not at all. He was debating my context, not moving goal post.
But thanks for playing
outhouse
Atheistically
Exactly.
And there is an evolution away from belief with certain amounts of knowledge. When looking at facts, belief is not required.
While one could state the answer is 2, belief in the answer being 2 is not required.
outhouse
Atheistically
McBell
Unbound
Would you by chance have a link that goes into more detail?
Notwithstanding that a vehicle with mass moving the speed of light is impossible, an observer on the ground would see the light beam and the vehicle moving at the same speed. Space and time would always warp in such a way that light always moves at c for all observers in all frames of reference. There are bizarre consequences for this, such as the relativity of simultaneity and the Andromeda Paradox.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
No. My understanding it won't. Don't ask me how.
outhouse
Atheistically
Nope. Morgan Freeman narrated it, and as I understand people moving forward in the train appear to stationary from another viewpoint even though they are walking forward in a train at or near light speed.
Speed being relative to time combined with the cosmic speed limit.
kepha31
Active Member
You must know at least one person who has no imagination.
Not really. When you refer to God as a concept you reduce the meaning of "God" to a relative term. Relativism is a virus from the reformation. When you generalize the true God with all the rest of man-made deities your premise is not clear. Since we are made in God's image and likeness, you can't deny God without denying man. God exists because the fact that human beings exist reflect His existence.
...Modern materialism denies that we have a soul and reduces us to a mere body. In doing so, it assumes that all our actions are determined by physical forces, and therefore denies that we have free will. It therefore declares to be unreal our everyday experience of freely choosing this or that action, and in doing so, removes the possibility of moral action. It reduces love and hate, courage and cowardice to chemistry, and makes of human adventure and human history predetermined paths marked out from the beginning by the laws of nature. And finally, based upon the notion that the universe is a great self-winding, law-driven machine, materialism declares that miracles are impossible and God does not exist...
Is Christmas a Fairy Story?
Is Christmas a Fairy Story?
Now when we look at the evidence we see King Josiah of Judah around 600 B.C.
Josiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now when we look at the evidence we see pre existing Canaanite gods around 1200 B.C.
Canaanite religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
God chose to reveal himself gradually and had nothing but a big mess to work with. The ugly history of the Hebrew people does not negate the truth of covenants. Kinship by Covenant - Hahn, Scott W - Yale University Press
So what. The first five books were never intended to be history. Some of it is incomplete and meant to be temporary.
We've been over this at least twice. The term does not have the same "cultural" meaning when applied to Christ as when applied to Caesar. The dominating pagan Roman culture used the term differently than a fledgling subculture. Equating the two is just spin.
It's all relative, isn't it?
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Finally! A talk about relativity!! I've tried to start threads on this before...
The question of whether or not light can travel at double the speed of light to those observing light from a stationary position is a flawed question. The whole point is that light (C) is a constant and it's just an analogy. We are constantly in motion, even though we appear to have no motion.
All speed is relative to the observer. The speed of your car on the highway (as described by the speedometer) is only relative to the motionless signpost, which is only motionless relative to the objects around it. The signpost is technically spinning around the axis of the Earth at 1,000 MPH, traveling through space at 17,000 miles per hour, like everything else on the planet, relative to the Sun and based only on our units of measurement... Your car, at 70 MPH relative to the signpost is actually something more like 18,070 mph relative to our place in the solar system, right? But even the solar system is moving around the center of the Milky Way at something like 145,000 MPH.... So what's the actual speed of your car on the highway? Is there even such a thing?
Light works similarly, so far as we know, thanks to physics. Standing on the back of a truck, traveling 70 MPH down the road, if you throw a baseball at 70 MPH, the observed speed of the baseball to the signpost is 140 MPH. But it's still just a 70 MPH fastball, as thrown by the guy in the truck. Since only photons can travel at the speed of light, they can't throw baseballs. The point of the analogy is that regardless of our speed, the speed of light is constant. If we traveled much much faster through the Universe, the speed of light would still be what it is, regardless of our relative speed. If we were traveling towards a light source at 1/2 the speed of light, the speed of light wouldn't change. It would still appear to travel at 186,000 miles per second. We know this from all of our astronomical observations. It's essentially infinite, because it's a constant. We won't know if there is anything else beyond the speed of light until we approach the speed of light, which we can never do.
The question of whether or not light can travel at double the speed of light to those observing light from a stationary position is a flawed question. The whole point is that light (C) is a constant and it's just an analogy. We are constantly in motion, even though we appear to have no motion.
All speed is relative to the observer. The speed of your car on the highway (as described by the speedometer) is only relative to the motionless signpost, which is only motionless relative to the objects around it. The signpost is technically spinning around the axis of the Earth at 1,000 MPH, traveling through space at 17,000 miles per hour, like everything else on the planet, relative to the Sun and based only on our units of measurement... Your car, at 70 MPH relative to the signpost is actually something more like 18,070 mph relative to our place in the solar system, right? But even the solar system is moving around the center of the Milky Way at something like 145,000 MPH.... So what's the actual speed of your car on the highway? Is there even such a thing?
Light works similarly, so far as we know, thanks to physics. Standing on the back of a truck, traveling 70 MPH down the road, if you throw a baseball at 70 MPH, the observed speed of the baseball to the signpost is 140 MPH. But it's still just a 70 MPH fastball, as thrown by the guy in the truck. Since only photons can travel at the speed of light, they can't throw baseballs. The point of the analogy is that regardless of our speed, the speed of light is constant. If we traveled much much faster through the Universe, the speed of light would still be what it is, regardless of our relative speed. If we were traveling towards a light source at 1/2 the speed of light, the speed of light wouldn't change. It would still appear to travel at 186,000 miles per second. We know this from all of our astronomical observations. It's essentially infinite, because it's a constant. We won't know if there is anything else beyond the speed of light until we approach the speed of light, which we can never do.
outhouse
Atheistically
You have no evidence the concept is not man made.
We see early Israelites combing al Els attributes to Yahweh and also divorcing his wife Asherah who was a very popular deity.
Israelites were polytheistic, they worshipped many man made deities by my opinion. Canaanite in origin.
Unsubstantiated rhetoric.
We evolved for millions of years before the Abrahamic mythology and theology existed.
One opinion does not make it so.
There was no exodus and no moses, and Abraham has zero historicity as ever existing. That is the current state of academia.
outhouse
Atheistically
It does not prove them as true either.
You need to quote specific passages. Linking to a book is not a credible means of debating. Provide the exact quotes and page number.
Don't know what this has to do with this thread but...
Speed of light not so constant after all | Science News
kepha31
Active Member
Nice post on relativity but it's not what I meant. Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes or what is really true. There are four kinds of relativism: metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and religious. The metaphysical relativism is the claim that there are no absolutes in reality; epistemological is that there are no absolutes in knowledge; morality is the denial of moral absolutes; and religious is the claim that there is no true religion. Relativism is a kind of pillar of sand on which the new Mythicism stands. It "disproves" the Resurrection. It began with reform-ism of the 16th century. Martin Luther's heretical doctrine of Sola Scriptura is largely responsible for the moral relativism we see in the secular world today, and traces of it can be found in modern scholarship, which amounts to a small group of scholars at odds with all the other scholars. Here is just one example:
Values differ from culture to culture. What is right in one culture is not right for another. Since they differ from culture to culture, we can conclude that values are relative.
The problem here is that the statement assumes there are no right or wrong opinions. An opinion cannot be true and another false at the same time. This argument assumes what it is supposed to be proving; that is, values differ from culture to culture. It doesn’t. What they differ about is what they think value is or their opinions on values. Opinions can be wrong. If one culture believes that murdering six million Jews is morally right, it doesn’t make it so. Also, if this is true, then how can we condemn the Nazis? If there is no objective standard to apply to, then we ought not to condemn them because it would be meaningless. The only reason why we can condemn some things such as the holocaust is that we presuppose an objective or absolute standard that everyone ought to apply to.
The Myth Theory, as well as atheism, has no objective standard to measure values in cultures. Furthermore, since relativism has so permeated our cultural paradigms, it has influenced the spawning of the myth theory which began around the 1900's, pathetically late in coming.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Ya gotta love it.
WirePaladin
Member
No, not necessarily. I can simply postulate, as a matter of universal agreement, that those actions resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number are "good.". Where "good" simply means the current well-being of the participants. Nothing more implied and "well being" refined as time and circumstances change.
This makes the final arbiter of "good" human reason. Nothing wrong with that. It is the most powerful thing we know of. It also makes US responsible for us, no sky daddy with thunder bolts or an eternal furnace needed or wanted. I think most of us, looking at the history of the last 2K years, especially Western History, see far more evil - acts resulting in harm to humans - far more such acts done in the name of some "god" than for any other justification. And the fact that we see that, that we understand the evil religious faith has done, that we can document it, and recognize it as Evil, that says more about our sense of morality than all the "scriptures' ever written.
In many ways, actions motivated by religious faith have been our best negative example, an open book on how NOT to behave.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov. I think he is wrong. The bible is certainly a disgusting book filled with horror and mayhem joyously told and joyously read. BUT. The MOST potent force for atheism is the behavior of believers, the Middle East being the best current example.
BTW, the cartoon, the next line, "Why ask me? Who has the power here? Who designed, created, runs, the whole show, Who knows how many hairs on my head? Who knows every sparrow? Made me, specifically ME as I am with all these flaws you are hinting at?
If anybody has the power to do something abut ALL of this it is YoU? Why throw the question back at me, a flawed, sinner, born with a corrupted heart and "sin" loving nature? All my YOUR design.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
You are only assuming your idea of values and absolutism then blasting every culture for not agreeing. More so when one looks at the Catholic world we see how fast this idea of absolutism falls apart into relative views and projection. Holocaust was bad but the Crusades were not? The same Crusades endorsed by the Papacy and your so-called supporters of absolutism.
Yes we all presume our own culture's morality is true, you have proven this yourself. What you have not proven is that your view is objective fact and not merely another cultural view you easily poke at when it is not your own. Humans have been doing this for centuries and will continue to do so as long as people such as yourself believe that their way is the only way.
kepha31
Active Member
Why do people do good things? Because we have a conscience that tells us right from wrong. Why would total strangers of any or no religion, risk their lives to save any stranger from a house fire or a car wreck? It happens every day. There is something built into each human being. I like the term "divine stamp". The point is, it is a matter of universal agreement that human beings have a conscience (often confused with emotions). The question is why be moral if we don't have one. Endorsing atheism makes it impossible to offer any rational arguments for why one should be moral, i.e. do good and avoid evil.
If atheism is true, there is no such thing as good in itself. One couldn't possibly do good for its own sake because the notions of good and evil, right and wrong, would lose their meaning. If God doesn't exist, then neither does the natural law (it would be redundant), so who's to say what's right and wrong? Who even cares?
You have been culturally conditioned to think that. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod), of the 1,763 major conflicts in recorded history, only 123 of them can be classified as having been fought over religious differences. That’s less than 7 percent. So what powers exist that would have grand scale acceptance of a falsehood?
I would never say atheists have no morals. What I am saying is atheists don't have any rational arguments for why one should be moral. This has nothing to do with centuries old conflicts.
Imagine how they would behave if they had no standard to violate.
One religion operates the world's largest charity (hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc.).
The ISIS beheads children.
Equate the two "religions" again and I'll have to put you on my ignore list.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I think you need to stop confusing materialism for atheism, and to keep in mind that atheists do have a basis for their morality - several million years of experience in forming social groups.
It is of course the,same everybodies morality came from before monotheism.