How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:06:31 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

If God showed up publicly today he'd have to answer a lot of
questions. I'm sure he shows up privately to many people. I've
spoken to him many times, and he's answered me.

There are drugs that can help with that. And ones that can cause it,
as well.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:57:21 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:38:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the hypothesis that deities exist is
testable. Which means that it isn't a hypothesis in the formal sense
of the word.

It is testable in exactly the same way as the existence of black holes
is testable.

No, it isn't. Black holes have a theoretical basis that allows us to
reasonably posit properties that we can then develop tests to detect.
What properties to any deities have that allow us to develop any
reasonable tests?

I already explained. The universe exists. Therefore it must have
been created. Look around you, all the things you see were created.
Some by God and some by man.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:19:18 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

The main purpose of organised religions was the jam tomorrow promise to
keep the poor plebs in their place and reinforce Kings backed by the
power of the Church who had a near monopoly on reading scripture. The
powerful all benefited from the arrangement at the expense of the poor.

Really? The first monotheistic religion was Judaism which rejected
kings, (until King David.)

The first monotheistic religion almost certainly predated Judaism. The
cult of Yahweh has roots in Egyptian, Zoroastrianism, and Babylonian
religions.

The tribes that invented the OT stories (or adapted them from the
tales of earlier cultures) did not reject kings. They were led by
strong patriarchal leaders who were basically kings.

And many kings had a fear or hatred of
religion. One king of England even started his own religion because
he had a disagreement with the Pope.

He didn't hate or fear religion. He needed it for control. He rejected
a _particular_ religion when it ceased to meet his needs.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:58:51 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I still don't know what it means. I doubt very much deities exist, so
I can't really be opposed to them. And if they do exist, I'm still not
opposed to them.

So you think we're the only beings in the universe?

I think it is unlikely.

What I'm opposed to is the epistemological system that leads people to
believe in deities. What I'm opposed to is most of the core philosophy
of many religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

The core philosophy is to love thy neighbor. Why would you oppose it?

That is not the core philosophy of Christianity. The core philosophy
is that all humans are sinners, at birth and for their entire life,
and that we are doomed to eternal punishment if we don't accept one of
its deities and ask it to forgive us for things it can't reasonably
forgive.

There is little in Christianity about love. That said, I do consider
"love thy neighbor" to be a very poor moral stricture, one that is
likely to lead to negative consequences.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:57:21 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:


I don't think that has really changed. Religion remains a tool for
social control of the weak and disenfranchised.

A small-minded person would say that. Actually it's a way for the
intelligent people to find order in a strange universe.

As science finds order in the universe, less people turn to religion.
But as science will find out that the universe is far more stranger
than it was ever believed, then more people will turn to religion.
Therefore there will always be a God.





This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:43:52 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:58:51 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I still don't know what it means. I doubt very much deities exist, so
I can't really be opposed to them. And if they do exist, I'm still not
opposed to them.

So you think we're the only beings in the universe?

I think it is unlikely.

AHA! There's the flaw in your logic. Since you believe that it
likely that there are other beings in the universe, then some of them
may not be mortal. Perhaps some of them may have visited the Earth in
ancient times?

After all, there are an infinite number of possibilities.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 8:17:12 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:48:11 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 03:02:57 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

"Hypothetical" is a word I tend to use in its scientific sense.
Deities aren't really hypothetical because they aren't testable
ideas.

If a deity should appear and plainly reveal its existence to a
very
large number of people, including major media as well as a large
number of reputable scientists who would report what they
observed,
wouldn't you consider that evidence for the existence of that
deity?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the hypothesis that deities exist is
testable. Which means that it isn't a hypothesis in the formal sense
of the word.

I don't know what it means to "oppose the existence of deities".

To oppose something means to be strongly against it, and to very
likely also actively against it.

I still don't know what it means. I doubt very much deities exist,
so
I can't really be opposed to them. And if they do exist, I'm still
not
opposed to them.

What I'm opposed to is the epistemological system that leads people
to
believe in deities. What I'm opposed to is most of the core
philosophy
of many religions, in particular the Abrahamic ones.

This would make you much like the billiga St Paul, who was strongly
oppose to Christians and persecuted them, unik God revealed itself to
him. Then he switched side and in time became one of the greatest
Christians of all time. He too didn't know how to oppose deities....
:-)

Men discover the infinite in everything and that is the only religion I
know of. You concern yourselves with worthless posturing but it is not so
for people who knew what Paul came to experience - that outward
convictions do not substitute for a guiding spirit that not only makes
sense of daily things but the great innovative works that drive spiritual people.

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour."

William Blake


You and your academic colleagues who firmly believes in 366 rotations in
365 days are hardly going to be scientific within the encompassing
greater life of the Universe and the relationship between the planet's
motions and terrestrial experiences. It looks like a living death to me
but seemingly people like to give themselves choices they don't really
have and propose it to students and the rest of the world as some
defining feature of achievement.

You are not a Christian. You are a primitive sky worshipper with four
religious holidays per year, the equinoxes and the solstices. Around these
"holidays" you have an unchanging ritual in which you try to point out the
obvious to people who understand more than you (that's everybody).
Then you try to make them believe your sillier views.You usually do this by
posting quotes which actually destroy your case.Occasionally you realise
this as in your sudden enthusiasm for an orrery website which you then
stopped using when you realised that it showed that Newton's statements on
retrogrades were obviously correct .

Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:43:52 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:58:51 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I still don't know what it means. I doubt very much deities exist, so
I can't really be opposed to them. And if they do exist, I'm still not
opposed to them.

So you think we're the only beings in the universe?

I think it is unlikely.

AHA! There's the flaw in your logic. Since you believe that it
likely that there are other beings in the universe, then some of them
may not be mortal. Perhaps some of them may have visited the Earth in
ancient times?

After all, there are an infinite number of possibilities.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

In a finite universe you can't have an infinity of possibilities.Large
numbers are no infinity.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:38:26 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

No, it isn't. Black holes have a theoretical basis that allows us to
reasonably posit properties that we can then develop tests to detect.
What properties to any deities have that allow us to develop any
reasonable tests?

I already explained. The universe exists. Therefore it must have
been created. Look around you, all the things you see were created.
Some by God and some by man.

A simplistic, irrational, and flawed argument of poorly educated
apologists.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:56:59 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

So you think we're the only beings in the universe?

I think it is unlikely.

AHA! There's the flaw in your logic. Since you believe that it
likely that there are other beings in the universe, then some of them
may not be mortal.

What is "mortal"? Do you mean with a finite lifetime? If so, then I'd
suggest that any beings, anywhere in the Universe are mortal.

Perhaps some of them may have visited the Earth in
ancient times?

Perhaps, but not likely, I think.