Aether Foreshortning at c

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:09:43 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/23/2012 4:08 PM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:00:54 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/23/2012 5:53 AM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:25:01 -0500, wrote:

On 2/22/2012 7:09 PM, Painius wrote:
Harlow exerted:
Painius asked and supposed:

So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed,
wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It
would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything
of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of
the immense gravitational field.

Gravity didn't exist at that point.

I'll hold my breath while I wait for you to prove that.

When the big bang began the four forces, gravity, electromagnetism,
along with the strong and weak nuclear forces, were combined into
one 'superforce'. It wasn't until approx 10 -36 seconds after that
when these forces separated.

Hmm - 10^-36 seconds is about when the cosmological inflation began,
so the Universe was still quite small at that time. That inflation is
postulated to have lasted until about 10^-33 or 10^-32 seconds, at
which time the Universe would have rapidly increased in volume by a
factor of at least 10^78.

But since, as you say, gravitation separated from the other forces
before cosmological inflation began, then that gravitation would have
contained the as yet small Universe and not allowed cosmological
inflation to have taken place.

Why?

So, you have shown evidence to support the existence of a
gravitational field generated by the initial singularity itself at
about 10^-36 seconds into expansion. That would render Alan Guth's
inflation theory--and our entire Universe--impossible.

Why?

Thank you, Harlow, for once again proving a very crucial point and
showing that the Big Bang is an impossibility! You da BOMB!

Explain.

That has already been done by Harlow and myself. Mostly by Harlow. He
is so great, isn't he? So go back and read the posts, Danny. I mean,
go back and try to actually read them with understanding, much like a
republican would do. You will then find the answers to your
questions.

Even if I say something 100 times or 1,000 times, if someone wants me to
repeat something, I do it for the 101st time or the 1,001st time. I
don't mind. Why do you?

Usually, I don't mind, Danny, but since it's you...

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:26:58 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/23/2012 9:15 AM, Painius wrote:


Harlow, if you have a question for me, then you should ask me, and not
tell lies about me to others. There is no "Painius' god", and you
know it.

Oftentimes it is necessary to tell a friend that he has bad breath.

Sorry, I don't have that, either.


How do you know? Do you just take it on 'faith'?

Talking ridiculously like this is also a sign that you are losing the
argument. No, you won't admit it. Not to yourself, and certainly not
to me.

Does it take 'faith' to not believe in leprechauns?
Your logic is flawed.

My logic is sound.


LOL


Do you have proof or hard evidence that God does or does not exist?

No?


See above comment Leprechauns.

That's part of your problem, Harlow. We are not talking about
characters out of fairytales, we are talking about an entity that is
faithfully believed in by the vast majority of the people of the
world. That's a *huge* difference from leprechauns. Only a few Irish
people and Walt Disney believed in those.

No, I realize that using the fact that almost everybody in the world
practices some faith or other is not a viable argument for you or me
to practice any of those faiths. All I say is that if you're going to
have faith that God does not exist, if you're going to be an atheist
and accept that there is no God, even when nearly all the people in
this world do believe in God or some deity, then you have to also
accept that you have no hard evidence that you could show all those
people that God does not exist. Otherwise, they will, in their avid
certainty that God *does* exist, just think of you as a moron.

And since you cannot provide them with hard evidence that God exists,
then you are in acceptance of a faith, JUST LIKE THEY ARE.

Then whatever "side" you are on, whether or not you believe in God,
you practice that belief or DISBELIEF out of FAITH, and *not* out of
REASON nor LOGIC.

Not at all...YOU support the notion that god exists.
I say prove it.

And again, I have never supported the notion that God exists or does
not exist. I support neither notion, therefore there is nothing for
me to prove. You, on the other hand, support the notion that God does
not exist.

I say prove it.

And I've said it quite a lot to quite a lot of atheists. They respond
like sheep, just like you. And whatever the details of what they say
happen to be, the bottom line is that they are unable to prove that
God does not exist.

They are sheep, faithful to atheism, trusting the Universe that there
is no God. Right or wrong, the important thing is that they are not
really certain that there is no God. How can they be certain, when
they cannot prove it nor provide any hard evidence for it?

I say the big bang is reality. YOU disagree.
You say prove it.

I did.

Actually, what you did was to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that
the Big Bang's an impossibility. You're just too dead in the head to
know it, yet.

......Still waiting on ANY proof of your god.

Don't hold your breath, Harlow, since I have no god. I don't own a
god. I don't believe in a god. Ergo, I have nothing to prove.

Atheism can also be seen as quite the "rebellion" against God and the
Church. That's what most atheists like about being an atheist. And
yet there is not one among them, no not one, who is absolutely certain
that there is no God. How could you be? You cannot produce one
single micro-shred of evidence to support such certainty.

Why should I need proof that a man-made fictional story *isn't*
real? It's absurd. Can't you see that?

For one thing, you don't really know for sure that the story isn't
true. You can produce no proof nor hard evidence that the story isn't
true, so you accept that it isn't true ON FAITH AND FAITH ALONE.

LOL! See above.

Laughter... the Best Medicine.

Laughter during any kind of debate is also a sign of nervousness.


LOL


There are three possible answers to the question, "Does God exist?"

The only legitimate, logical and reasonable answer to that question:
I D O N ' T K N O W


Would you give the same answer to ANY other fictional characters?

Would your answer to anyone questioning the existence of Lord
Voldemort be, "I Don't Know"?

No, I would not give the same answer to any "fictional" character.
Lord Voldemort is a figment of Rowling's imagination. It has never
been claimed otherwise, nor has anyone other than children thought
that the character is real. That does not compare with a character
that is (generally) believed in and faithfully loved by the majority
of people on Earth.

Yes, those people base their belief in the character on faith, but
then, you base your disbelief in the character on faith. At least you
have that much in common.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

On 2/23/2012 5:51 PM, Painius wrote:

The tremendous, stupendous gravitational field of that
initial singularity, the size of which was ever so much larger than
any gravitational field we could possibly imagine in our present
Universe, even among the quasars, would have CONTAINED the expansion
BEFORE Guth's inflation could have gotten very far.

Why would it have contained the expansion?

On 2/23/2012 5:53 PM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:09:43 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/23/2012 4:08 PM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:00:54 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/23/2012 5:53 AM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:25:01 -0500, wrote:

On 2/22/2012 7:09 PM, Painius wrote:
Harlow exerted:
Painius asked and supposed:

So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed,
wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It
would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything
of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of
the immense gravitational field.

Gravity didn't exist at that point.

I'll hold my breath while I wait for you to prove that.

When the big bang began the four forces, gravity, electromagnetism,
along with the strong and weak nuclear forces, were combined into
one 'superforce'. It wasn't until approx 10 -36 seconds after that
when these forces separated.

Hmm - 10^-36 seconds is about when the cosmological inflation began,
so the Universe was still quite small at that time. That inflation is
postulated to have lasted until about 10^-33 or 10^-32 seconds, at
which time the Universe would have rapidly increased in volume by a
factor of at least 10^78.

But since, as you say, gravitation separated from the other forces
before cosmological inflation began, then that gravitation would have
contained the as yet small Universe and not allowed cosmological
inflation to have taken place.

Why?

So, you have shown evidence to support the existence of a
gravitational field generated by the initial singularity itself at
about 10^-36 seconds into expansion. That would render Alan Guth's
inflation theory--and our entire Universe--impossible.

Why?

Thank you, Harlow, for once again proving a very crucial point and
showing that the Big Bang is an impossibility! You da BOMB!

Explain.

That has already been done by Harlow and myself. Mostly by Harlow. He
is so great, isn't he? So go back and read the posts, Danny. I mean,
go back and try to actually read them with understanding, much like a
republican would do. You will then find the answers to your
questions.

Even if I say something 100 times or 1,000 times, if someone wants me to
repeat something, I do it for the 101st time or the 1,001st time. I
don't mind. Why do you?

Usually, I don't mind, Danny, but since it's you...

Well, other people can see and read your posts as well. So, go ahead
and support your assertion for the 1,001st time if you have to.

On 2/23/2012 6:39 PM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:26:58 -0500, wrote:

On 2/23/2012 9:15 AM, Painius wrote:


Harlow, if you have a question for me, then you should ask me, and not
tell lies about me to others. There is no "Painius' god", and you
know it.

Oftentimes it is necessary to tell a friend that he has bad breath.

Sorry, I don't have that, either.


How do you know? Do you just take it on 'faith'?

Talking ridiculously like this is also a sign that you are losing the
argument. No, you won't admit it. Not to yourself, and certainly not
to me.

Does it take 'faith' to not believe in leprechauns?
Your logic is flawed.

My logic is sound.


LOL


Do you have proof or hard evidence that God does or does not exist?

No?


See above comment Leprechauns.

That's part of your problem, Harlow. We are not talking about
characters out of fairytales, we are talking about an entity that is
faithfully believed in by the vast majority of the people of the
world.

Does mere belief or faith change reality? If 100% of the human species
faithfully believed that the Earth was a round disk supported by
turtles, would that be true?

That's a *huge* difference from leprechauns. Only a few Irish
people and Walt Disney believed in those.

What if 0% of the human species faithfully believed that the Earth was
an oblate spheroid orbiting the Sol star in one of the arms of the Milky
Way galaxy. Would that make it false?

No, I realize that using the fact that almost everybody in the world
practices some faith or other is not a viable argument for you or me
to practice any of those faiths.

Thanks. That would be the bandwagon fallacy.

All I say is that if you're going to
have faith that God does not exist,

Where is your evidence that HVAC has faith that God does not exist?

if you're going to be an atheist
and accept that there is no God,

That's not atheism.

even when nearly all the people in
this world do believe in God or some deity, then you have to also
accept that you have no hard evidence that you could show all those
people that God does not exist.

No evidence is required.

Otherwise, they will, in their avid
certainty that God *does* exist, just think of you as a moron.

Regardless, they have no evidence. Whether they think me, you, HVAC or
others are "morons" is not a reason to jump in their line of thinking.

And since you cannot provide them with hard evidence that God exists,
then you are in acceptance of a faith, JUST LIKE THEY ARE.

Not really. We don't need evidence. They do.

Then whatever "side" you are on, whether or not you believe in God,
you practice that belief or DISBELIEF out of FAITH, and *not* out of
REASON nor LOGIC.

Not at all...YOU support the notion that god exists.
I say prove it.

And again, I have never supported the notion that God exists or does
not exist.

So, do you believe in deities?

snip to end

Someone, evidently a reader of and poster to alt.atheism, wrote:

(After I wrote

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

Then what are you? Or are you just confused about the definition of
"atheist" (one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents)?

I am many things, a humanist for one, also a parent, a child, a war
veteran, a returned Peace Corps volunteer, many things. In this
particular context, I am neither an atheist nor a theist. I neither
believe nor disbelieve in deities and supernatural beings. I simply
don't know whether or not they exist. I can produce no proof nor hard
evidence that supernatural beings do exist or don't exist.

I think they are all
full of it. All of them practice a form of faith. The theist has
faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity exists.

That is one conclusion based on a valid premise.

The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no hard
evidence that a deity does not exist. Any who take such stands
practice faith-based belief systems. So please learn how to read with
understanding.

It's difficult to understand when you misspell "anti-theist" or confuse
terminology (which I suspect is more likely the case with you); please
read these definitions carefully, and note, in particular, that an
atheist doesn't actually oppose beliefs:

* atheist: one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents

* anti-theist: one who believes that deities and supernatural
agents specifically don't exist

* theist: one who believes in one or more deities, and, optionally,
any number of supernatural agents

Yes, I do know the differences. I know how to look them up, and I
know how to read with understanding. If my writing confuses you, then
it is okay with me if you prefer to automatically assume that the
fault is with me... whether it is or not.

How else will you ever become a republican?

It's not clear how US politics is related.

The relation has to do with the reading skill of the person whom I was
addressing. As you may know, a republican in the US is considered a
conservative and a democrat is a liberal. The US, as you may also
know, is still a republic and not yet a true democracy. So... When a
person learns how to read with understanding, that person
automatically becomes a republican.

I guess you had to be there. (It's a joke.)

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

On 2012-Feb-23 19:43, DanielSan wrote:
On 2/23/2012 5:51 PM, Painius wrote:

The tremendous, stupendous gravitational field of that
initial singularity, the size of which was ever so much larger than
any gravitational field we could possibly imagine in our present
Universe, even among the quasars, would have CONTAINED the expansion
BEFORE Guth's inflation could have gotten very far.

Why would it have contained the expansion?

He might be confusing kinetic force with gravity just a tad.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Man is a being in search of meaning."
-- Plato of Athens

On 2012-Feb-23 19:51, DanielSan wrote:
On 2/23/2012 6:39 PM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:26:58 -0500, wrote:
On 2/23/2012 9:15 AM, Painius wrote:
[snip - good stuff]
Do you have proof or hard evidence that God does or does not exist?

No?

See above comment Leprechauns.

That's part of your problem, Harlow. We are not talking about
characters out of fairytales, we are talking about an entity that is
faithfully believed in by the vast majority of the people of the
world.

Does mere belief or faith change reality? If 100% of the human species
faithfully believed that the Earth was a round disk supported by
turtles, would that be true?

That is such an important aspect of free thinking -- the "just because
everyone else does/believes" pressure does not effect someone who is
truly free in their thinking.

The entire species could believe in one particular principle that's
wrong, with the exception of one free thinker who "gets reality right,"
and that would not change reality no matter how much peer pressure and
coercion was involved in trying to persuade that one person.

Impartiality is the benefit that may be awarded naturally to those who
are not afraid to think freely.

That's a *huge* difference from leprechauns. Only a few Irish
people and Walt Disney believed in those.

What if 0% of the human species faithfully believed that the Earth was
an oblate spheroid orbiting the Sol star in one of the arms of the Milky
Way galaxy. Would that make it false?

That was a nice "devil's advocate" style of example.

No, I realize that using the fact that almost everybody in the world
practices some faith or other is not a viable argument for you or me
to practice any of those faiths.

Thanks. That would be the bandwagon fallacy.

Ah, so that's what that logical fallacy is called. Thank you.

All I say is that if you're going to
have faith that God does not exist,

Where is your evidence that HVAC has faith that God does not exist?

if you're going to be an atheist
and accept that there is no God,

That's not atheism.

Indeed, atheism is not about acceptance.

even when nearly all the people in
this world do believe in God or some deity, then you have to also
accept that you have no hard evidence that you could show all those
people that God does not exist.

No evidence is required.
[snip - good stuff]

I also don't see why those who lack belief in deities and supernatural
agents should ever be required to prove anything in this regard.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety."
-- Plato of Athens

On 2012-Feb-23 20:29, Painius wrote:
Someone, evidently a reader of and poster to alt.atheism, wrote:

(After I wrote

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

Then what are you? Or are you just confused about the definition of
"atheist" (one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents)?

I am many things, a humanist for one, also a parent, a child, a war
veteran, a returned Peace Corps volunteer, many things. In this
particular context, I am neither an atheist nor a theist. I neither
believe nor disbelieve in deities and supernatural beings. I simply
don't know whether or not they exist. I can produce no proof nor hard
evidence that supernatural beings do exist or don't exist.

If that translates to a lack of belief in deities, then you are an atheist.

If that translates to a position that the determination of whether
deities exists cannot be proven, then you are an agnostic.

Is it one of those two, or is there another option that you'd like to
provide that fits better?

I think they are all
full of it. All of them practice a form of faith. The theist has
faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity exists.

That is one conclusion based on a valid premise.

The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no hard
evidence that a deity does not exist. Any who take such stands
practice faith-based belief systems. So please learn how to read with
understanding.

It's difficult to understand when you misspell "anti-theist" or confuse
terminology (which I suspect is more likely the case with you); please
read these definitions carefully, and note, in particular, that an
atheist doesn't actually oppose beliefs:

* atheist: one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents

* anti-theist: one who believes that deities and supernatural
agents specifically don't exist

* theist: one who believes in one or more deities, and, optionally,
any number of supernatural agents

Yes, I do know the differences. I know how to look them up, and I
know how to read with understanding. If my writing confuses you, then
it is okay with me if you prefer to automatically assume that the
fault is with me... whether it is or not.

So is that a cop-out?

How else will you ever become a republican?

It's not clear how US politics is related.

The relation has to do with the reading skill of the person whom I was
addressing. As you may know, a republican in the US is considered a
conservative and a democrat is a liberal. The US, as you may also
know, is still a republic and not yet a true democracy. So... When a
person learns how to read with understanding, that person
automatically becomes a republican.

I guess you had to be there. (It's a joke.)

That's an interesting play on words. Nicely done.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"God is dead."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:34:55 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 8:58 PM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:39:28 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/22/2012 5:25 PM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:37:36 -0800 (PST), "Fidem Turbare, atheist
wrote:

On Feb 22, 11:57 am, wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:39:09 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-22 10:00, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:25 -0500, wrote:
On 2/22/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:

That's close enough, Bert. The figures are 4.5% known matter, and
95.5% space. The present model figures that the 95.5% is made up of
"dark matter" and "dark energy". It is much more likely that there is
no need to postulate dark energy

That's right, Bert...Don't listen to the entire scientific
community...Listen to Painus.

He once read something about dark energy and he didn't like it.

Yes, I read that dark energy must be postulated to account for the
accelerated expansion of the Universe. But if the Universe is not
expanding, then there is no need to postulate a dark energy.

That's absurd. (Have you been huffing bug spray? It seems to be a past
time around here with some folks.)

Prove that the Universe is expanding, Harlow. Show me one study that
has been made here in local space that shows that space is expanding.

I'll wait right here.

Two words: Red shift

You fail to read my words, and you think *I've* been inhaling bug

No, I didn't make any such conclusion, I merely asked if this was
something you did. Interestingly, you didn't answer this question,
and at this point I think it would be best if Zacharias Mulletstein,
alt.atheism's local resident expert in bug spray huffing (he has a lot
of first-hand experience in this area), could provide some perspective
on this since I'm truly out of my element concerning this topic.

spray? I wrote "here in local space", Fidem. There is absolutely no
evidence locally that the Universe is expanding. The expansion cannot
be measured. Science will tell us that its because the actual amount
of expansion here at the local level is too small to be measured.

What is your justification that local evidence is a requirement for
something that is occurring elsewhere?

Cop out. That's a cop out. If space were expanding at an accelerated
rate, then there should be some scientific method of testing that here
in local space.

That's an assumption which is obviously wrong. As a simple example,
if in a typical 12,000 sq. ft. home the owner expands one end of the
house by adding a 1,200 sq. ft. room, there's no reason that anyone
residing at the other end of the house will notice any effects
(especially if closed doors and walls block construction noise, dust
and debris, etc.).

Instead, they rely upon redshifts and cosmic microwave background
radiation and a myriad of other pieces of evidence that could also be
both caused by something else besides an expanding Universe and be
evidence of other plausible hypotheses.

Logically you do have a point that red shifts and radiation waves may
not be restricted to only one cause, and I'd be interested in finding
out what other causes you might be considering.

You brought up the redshift of faraway galaxies, then please explain
the following:

"Using standard candles with known intrinsic brightness, the
acceleration in the expansion of the universe has been measured using
redshift as Ho = 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of
distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about
74 kilometers per second."

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Let me give you my interpretation, and then, if you like, you can give
me your interpretation.

A parsec is a measure of distance equal to about 3.26 light years. A
million parsecs, then, is about 3.26 million light years. Now lets
look at a simple scale...

0_____1_____2_____3_____4

Let us say that an observer on Earth is at ZERO on this scale, and the
numbers ONE thru FOUR represent an increasing distance from ZERO in
Megaparsecs (Mp or a million parsecs).

Science says that at ONE, or 1 Megaparsec from the observer, the rate
of expansion is about 74 km/s higher than at ZERO. Also, at TWO, the
rate of expansion is about 74 km/s higher than at ONE, at THREE, the
rate of expansion is about 74 km/s higher than at TWO, and so forth.

Point ONE on the scale lies about 3.26 million light years from ZERO
and from TWO. If a light source were to exist at ONE, then it would
take 3.26 million years for its light to reach the observer at ZERO.
This must mean that point ONE represents a point in space that we can
only observe to be 3.26 million years in the _past_. It follows that
point TWO is about 6.52 million years in the past, point THREE is 9.78
million years in the past and point FOUR is 13.04 million years in the
past.

So science says that 3.26 million years ago, the Universe's rate of
expansion *was* 74 km/s higher than now. Also, 6.52 million years
ago, the expansion rate was 74 km/s faster than 3.26 million years
ago, 9.78 million years ago, the Universe expanded 74 km/s faster than
it did 6.52 million years ago, and 13.04 million years ago, the
expansion rate was faster by 74 km/s than it was 9.78 million years
ago. It seems the farther away we observe (and the longer in the past
we see) the faster the Universe was expanding.

Let's now proceed back to the observer from point FOUR. At FOUR, the
Universe was expanding faster than at THREE, which was expanding
faster than it was at TWO, which was faster than at ONE, which was
faster than here in the present time. Since there is no observable,
testable evidence here and now in local space that the Universe is
expanding, then it would seem that over the years, that is, the nearer
we get to the point of observation here in the present, the SLOWER the
Universe expanded. And now, it doesn't seem to be expanding at all.

It might even be contracting.

Perhaps our observations here from the specks of dust of our Solar
system and planet veil the realities of the Universe?

Fidem, how can it be right to judge what the Universe is doing right
now by our observation of what it did millions of years ago in the
past? How can it be correct to look out into the Cosmos and say with
any surety that we know that it is expanding? that we know what it is
doing RIGHT NOW?

It's not right to judge, but developing theories and, consequently,
the science to try to prove or disprove those theories is an important
aspect of scientific progress. What you're attempting to do is to
disprove these theories, and you do present an interesting case, but
you must also understand that there are mountains of research that in
opposition to your ideas (which you've obviously put a tremendous
amount of care, effort, and thought into).

I think it's truly wonderful when someone questions facts and theories
because the ensuing discourse can be constructive as well as
interesting. Unfortunately you're "gravitation" toward the deity
delusion (at least it's a delusion insofar as the lack of evidence for
the existence of deities and supernatural forces is not addressed with
credible verifiable evidence) doesn't lend you the credence you so
desperately need, and particularly because you're posting here in
alt.atheism. With this attitude, you'd likely be laughed out of any
scientific journals as well, but I encourage you to submit your ideas
to one without the delusional stuff as it could be a highly
educational experience for you.

LOL - my "'gravitation' toward the deity delusion"?

If I were thusly gravitated, then as you say, here in alt.atheism,
those who believe in the faith-based idea that there is no deity

Sorry, but no.

Very well, Danny. Then prove there is no deity.

No need.

Then, or not, if you prefer. I certainly can't make you prove there
is no deity. But one would think that if you want to believe that
there is no deity, you would not want to just blindly accept it as
fact without looking for proof, or at the very least, good solid
evidence.

Can you provide hard evidence for your stand, Danny?

If you still think this is unnecessary, then by all means, continue to
sheepishly follow the atheist practice of not believing in deities
just because theists cannot prove they exist. That may be enough for
you. It is not enough for me.

And please don't try
that tired, old trick about how impossible it is to prove a negative.

It might be old because what you're doing is a logical fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy. You either believe in a deity or you
don't. However, not believing in a deity just because theists cannot
prove that a deity exists, while perhaps sufficient for you, is not
sufficient for me. In my opinion, to accept there is no deity just
because theists cannot prove its existence makes the atheist just as
much of a sheep as a theist. Without hard evidence one way or the
other, both belief and disbelief are FAITH-BASED systems.

I have already shown that it is just as easy or difficult to prove a
negative as it is to prove its corresponding positive.

Not really, no.

A man, we'll call him Jack, goes out and buys a black car. His
friend, Fred, calls and says that their mutual friend, Harry, told him
that Jack had bought a new, white car. To prove that he has a black
car is easy, yes? That's the "positive". But can Jack prove the
"negative" to Fred? Can Jack prove that his car is "not white"? How
hard is that?

It's just as easy for Jack to prove that his car is not white as it is
for him to prove that his car is black, isn't it? The difficulty to
prove a negative is on a 1:1 correspondence with the difficulty to
prove its corresponding positive. That is why I say that the only
reason it's impossible to prove that deities and other supernatural
beings don't exist is because it's impossible to prove that they do.

So the only
reason it's impossible to prove that there is no deity is because it's
impossible to prove that there *is* one.

Sorry, but this is the claim of religious people that there is a deity.
We aren't making a claim.

A man looks you in the eye and says, "God exists." How is this
different from a man who looks you in the eye and says, "God does not
exist." You seem to be saying that one is a claim and the other is
not. They are both claims, and they both require reliable sources for
them to be valid, verifiable claims.

You cannot seem to step away from your standard perspective and see
this objectively.

And since the belief in a deity is a faith-based belief precisely
because it is impossible to prove that a deity exists, then the belief
that there is no deity

...is not atheism.

Then what *is* atheism to you?

If atheism is not the faith-based belief that there are no deities nor
supernatural beings, then what is it?

is a faith-based belief precisely because it is
impossible to prove that a deity does not exist.

The only answer to the question, "Does a deity exist?", that is not
faith-based is, "I don't know."

You're talking about *gnosticism, not *theism. Try to stay on topic.

A gnostic is a theist, but a theist is not necessarily a gnostic. So
for a man to look you in the eye and say, "I don't know whether or not
there is a deity," is not the behavior of a gnostic. It is you who
veer off topic, probably because the topic flusters you. That's good.
You are beginning to question WHY you are an atheist. What are the
reasons you choose to be an atheist? Are those reasons good enough to
make you absolutely certain there is no deity? And so forth.

I am not a theist, because I do not know if God exists.
I am not an atheist, because I do not know if God does not exist.
None of that makes me a gnostic. Nor does it make me an agnostic.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."